Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 12:00:35 -0600
From: root <root@mail.gadugi.org>
To: Helge Hafting <helge.hafting@hist.no>
Cc: Stephen Pollei <stephen_pollei@comcast.net>, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: OT Re: Cherokee Nation Posts Open Source Legisation
Message-ID: <20050107180035.GA17728@mail.gadugi.org>
References: <20050106180414.GA11597@mail.gadugi.org> <200501061836.j06IakHo030551@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <20050106183725.GA12028@mail.gadugi.org> <200501061935.j06JZMq4013855@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <1105043496.970.49.camel@fury> <20050106213221.GA12866@mail.gadugi.org> <41DE88A2.6050004@hist.no>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <41DE88A2.6050004@hist.no>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2749
Lines: 59

On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 02:03:30PM +0100, Helge Hafting wrote:
> >If the license says the receipient of a piece of code must acknowledge 
> >and protect the trade secrets it contains, then it's enforceable.  
> >
> Sure, but if there is a secret that must be protected, then it
> isn't open source! 
> 
> By definition: open source is something I can give to absolutely anybody
> with no reservations.  I.e. no need to protect anything. 
> 
> So your law means you can give someone code with the restriction that
> they protect the trade secret within, but such code is not open source.
> It may be less restrictive than many other commercial/proprietary licences,
> (i.e. you can give it away for free, for example) but it is not _open_
> with such restrictions. 
> 
> The linux source for example, can be given to anybody with no
> reservations other than that the GPL is respected.  (The GPL does not
> limit redistribution though.) 
> 
> Helge Hafting

It's as open as linux is today.  Think about it.  Linux really isn't
"free" or "open" since it has the concept of personal ownership of 
the code.  Linus himself responded to the GPL buyout offer and stated
"his" code would remain GPL.  Linus was exercising his rights of 
ownerhsip by making this statement. 

"open" means it's open for contribution and attribution from others,
but none of it is really "free" since someone owns it and can exercise
the rights of that ownership, including deciding what license scheme
it will be under, and in some cases, litigating to stop people from 
using it in certain circumstances. 

Under the current Linux umbrella with the GPL, "open" and "free" 
are ephemisms for "contribution" and "attribution."  The one exception
this ;icense places is it removes the ability of other to coop or 
steal an individuals work.  This model we are proposing is no different
from what Linux operates under today -- with one exception -- an author
can protect their work from being ripped off by various projects 
claiming to be open and it prevents the "mob" mentality from 
circumventing someone elses rights to their creative works by 
preventing the majority from ousting a minority contributor 
and taking their work by brute force.  

Something the GPL professes to provide to copyright holders, but really
doens't.  This model also makes open source projects commerically 
viable by allowing groups, individuals, and organizations the 
ability to enforce their rights in state courts with trade secret 
claims.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/