Cherokee Nation Posts Open Source Legisation - Invites comments from Community Members

Cherokee Nation Posts Open Source Legisation - Invites comments from Community Members

[root]

The Draft legislation can be found at www.gadugi.org 

The Cherokee Nation is submitting draft Trade Secret Legislation to the Information Technology 
and Open Source Community for comments.

This legislation Will be voted on in the Rules Committee Jan 17 and will be presented for 
ratification to the Full Tribal Council on February 14, 2005. This legislation is designed 
to protect trade secrets for both open source development and general public licensing 
schemes as well as proprietary technology developed in the commerical sector.

All Industry members are invited to submit comments and suggestions regarding this 
legislation prior to submission to the Cherokee Nation Tribal Council for ratification.

The Draft Cherokee Nation open source public license will be posted this week as well.  
Your views on patent legislation, and trade secret legislation are welcome.

Wa-do

RE: Cherokee Nation Posts Open Source Legisation - Invites comments from Community Members

[Stephen Warren]

From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
> 
> On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 12:04:14 CST, root said:
> > This legislation Will be voted on in the Rules Committee 
> > Jan 17 and will be presented for 
> > ratification to the Full Tribal Council on February 14, 
> > 2005. This legislation is designed 
> > to protect trade secrets for both open source development 
> > and general public licensing 
> > schemes as well as proprietary technology developed in the 
> > commerical sector.
> 
> I fail to see how you can *possibly* have "trade secret" 
> rights in open source
> software.  At least not in any way interoperable with any 
> other country's usage
> of the term "trade secret".

Nor is it compatible with the definitions of the words "public" and
"secret" in the English language...

-- 
Stephen Warren, Software Engineer, NVIDIA, Fort Collins, CO
swarren@nvidia.com        http://www.nvidia.com/
swarren@wwwdotorg.org     http://www.wwwdotorg.org/pgp.html

RE: Cherokee Nation Posts Open Source Legisation - Invites comments from Community Members

[linux-os]

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Stephen Warren wrote:

> From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
>>
>> On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 12:04:14 CST, root said:
>>> This legislation Will be voted on in the Rules Committee
>>> Jan 17 and will be presented for
>>> ratification to the Full Tribal Council on February 14,
>>> 2005. This legislation is designed
>>> to protect trade secrets for both open source development
>>> and general public licensing
>>> schemes as well as proprietary technology developed in the
>>> commerical sector.
>>
>> I fail to see how you can *possibly* have "trade secret"
>> rights in open source
>> software.  At least not in any way interoperable with any
>> other country's usage
>> of the term "trade secret".
>
> Nor is it compatible with the definitions of the words "public" and
> "secret" in the English language...
>

These "Indian Nations" create and use special meanings for
common words. For instance "No" becomes a "No clause" that
could mean "yes" in certain instances like bypassing state
taxes and running casinos. They have even been able to resurrect
"tribes" that have long ago been assimilated and their
"reservations" sold as farm land. Mohegan comes to mind.

I suspect that the proposed "Act" displayed on the www.gagugi.org
web-page is either a hoax, some kind of hard-to-understand joke,
or the scribblings of idiots.

Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.6.10 on an i686 machine (5537.79 BogoMips).
  Notice : All mail here is now cached for review by Dictator Bush.
                  98.36% of all statistics are fiction.

Cherokee Nation Posts Open Source Legisation - Invites comments from Community Members

[root]

The Cherokee Nation is submitting draft Trade Secret Legislation to the Information Technology 
and Open Source Community for comments.

This legislation Will be voted on in the Rules Committee Jan 17 and will be presented for 
ratification to the Full Tribal Council on February 14, 2005. This legislation is designed 
to protect trade secrets for both open source development and general public licensing 
schemes as well as proprietary technology developed in the commerical sector.

All Industry members are invited to submit comments and suggestions regarding this 
legislation prior to submission to the Cherokee Nation Tribal Council for ratification.

The Draft Cherokee Nation open source public license will be posted this week as well.  
Your views on patent legislation, and trade secret legislation are welcome.

Wa-do

Re: Cherokee Nation Posts Open Source Legisation - Invites comments from Community Members

[Valdis.Kletnieks]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 681 bytes --]

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 12:04:14 CST, root said:

> This legislation Will be voted on in the Rules Committee Jan 17 and will be presented for 
> ratification to the Full Tribal Council on February 14, 2005. This legislation is designed 
> to protect trade secrets for both open source development and general public licensing 
> schemes as well as proprietary technology developed in the commerical sector.

I fail to see how you can *possibly* have "trade secret" rights in open source
software.  At least not in any way interoperable with any other country's usage
of the term "trade secret".

It's one thing to be smoking a peace pipe. Totally another to be smoking a
crack pipe.



[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 226 bytes --]

Re: Cherokee Nation Posts Open Source Legisation - Invites comments from Community Members

[root]

On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 01:36:46PM -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 12:04:14 CST, root said:
> 
> > This legislation Will be voted on in the Rules Committee Jan 17 and will be presented for 
> > ratification to the Full Tribal Council on February 14, 2005. This legislation is designed 
> > to protect trade secrets for both open source development and general public licensing 
> > schemes as well as proprietary technology developed in the commerical sector.
> 
> I fail to see how you can *possibly* have "trade secret" rights in open source
> software.  At least not in any way interoperable with any other country's usage
> of the term "trade secret".
> 
> It's one thing to be smoking a peace pipe. Totally another to be smoking a
> crack pipe.
> 
> 



It's based on the design of the license.  Under Cherokee Nation Law, you
can have and claim trade secrets in public code released under a public
license.  This makes it very easy for individual contributors to 
enforce their rights in the US.  We spent months researching this, and yes,
it holds up under our laws.  

Re: Cherokee Nation Posts Open Source Legisation - Invites comments from Community Members

[Valdis.Kletnieks]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1672 bytes --]

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 12:37:25 CST, root said:

> It's based on the design of the license.  Under Cherokee Nation Law, you
> can have and claim trade secrets in public code released under a public
> license.  This makes it very easy for individual contributors to 
> enforce their rights in the US.  We spent months researching this, and yes,
> it holds up under our laws.  

You will have trouble with "rights in the US", because of the definition of
"trade secret" includes 18 USC 1839 (3):

(3) the term "trade secret" means all forms and types of financial,
business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information,
including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs,
prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes,
whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or
memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in
writing if --

(A) the owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret; and

(B) the information derives independent economic value, actual or potential,
from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through
proper means by, the public; and

You'll have a hard time convincing a jury not on the reservation that publishing
something as open source is at all a "reasonable measure to keep it secret".

In fact, you're going to have a hard time - if you're not a sovereign nation,
then 18 USC 1839 will trump your law.  And if you *are* a sovereign nation,
you better get some lobbyists that can read and understand the implications
of 19 USC 2242(a)(1)(A) and/or 19 USC 2242(b)(1).....

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 226 bytes --]

Re: Cherokee Nation Posts Open Source Legisation - Invites comments from Community Members

[christos gentsis]

Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 12:37:25 CST, root said:
> 
> 
>>It's based on the design of the license.  Under Cherokee Nation Law, you
>>can have and claim trade secrets in public code released under a public
>>license.  This makes it very easy for individual contributors to 
>>enforce their rights in the US.  We spent months researching this, and yes,
>>it holds up under our laws.  
> 
> 
> You will have trouble with "rights in the US", because of the definition of
> "trade secret" includes 18 USC 1839 (3):
> 
> (3) the term "trade secret" means all forms and types of financial,
> business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information,
> including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs,
> prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes,
> whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or
> memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in
> writing if --
> 
> (A) the owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret; and
> 
> (B) the information derives independent economic value, actual or potential,
> from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through
> proper means by, the public; and
> 
> You'll have a hard time convincing a jury not on the reservation that publishing
> something as open source is at all a "reasonable measure to keep it secret".
> 
> In fact, you're going to have a hard time - if you're not a sovereign nation,
> then 18 USC 1839 will trump your law.  And if you *are* a sovereign nation,
> you better get some lobbyists that can read and understand the implications
> of 19 USC 2242(a)(1)(A) and/or 19 USC 2242(b)(1).....

hello all

sorry about this question but i didn't understand something in all this 
"trade secret" situation...

first: Is there any impact in GNU GPL?

second: does this US law means that everything could be a "trade 
secret"? even something like the  GUI? or a process bar? and in case 
that someone will register them what is going to happens?

third: this under US law, is it applied in EU etc????

thanks for your time
Christos

Re: Cherokee Nation Posts Open Source Legisation - Invites comments from Community Members

[Valdis.Kletnieks]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2086 bytes --]

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 07:03:31 GMT, christos gentsis said:

> sorry about this question but i didn't understand something in all this 
> "trade secret" situation...
> 
> first: Is there any impact in GNU GPL?

I'm not a lawyer, just a sysadmin/programmer who follows this sort of stuff,
but it's most likely that this will not impact GPL-licensed software, because
it isn't attempting to restrict what things can be put into GPL software.

If anything, all this law *actually* does is get Cherokee law to match what
current US law *already* says.

> second: does this US law means that everything could be a "trade 
> secret"? even something like the  GUI? or a process bar? and in case 
> that someone will register them what is going to happens?

It's not a US law - it's a proposed Cherokee law (In the US, there exist
some Indian reservations that are somewhat autonomous and able to make their
own laws).

The actual text of the law as proposed is posted at
http://www.gadugi.org/article.php?story=2005010611364165

The Cherokee law would apparently *ban* publishing open source that
contains a trade secret, as that would be a "Willful breach or willful
inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy;" and therefor a no-no.

(Logic - (1)(d)(i) says it has to be a secret, (1)(d)(ii) says you have to
apply reasonable efforts to *keep* it secret.  Therefore, *publishing* it
would be an "improper" means under (1)(a)(iv), and thus (1)(b)(ii)(B) makes it
"misappropriation"..)

The company can't even claim there is no "breach" or "improper means" because
they intended to publish the source code as open source - because then it no
longer meets the "subject of reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy"
requirement.  If you're not even trying to keep it a secret, it's not a secret.

> third: this under US law, is it applied in EU etc????

It isn't even clear that this law would apply in the US, much less in the EU.

But that's OK, because there's no real danger here, unless you were hoping to
use the Cherokee law to protect secrets in code you publish as open source....


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 226 bytes --]

Re: Cherokee Nation Posts Open Source Legisation - Invites comments from Community Members

[root]

There is no impact on the GPL and any Linux code covered under the GPL
remains as such.  The Ga-du-gi OS is defined under the current FSF 
definitions as a "collective work" not a "derivative work".  So all the
folks sending mail to LKML and gadugi.org that implies otherwise
are out in the weeds.  

It just Linux with a new kernel underneath as an /arch port at present.
Over time, most of the GPL code will be replaced and at the option of
copyright holders, possibly converted to another license.  The advantage
to the latter is it will stop a lot of the SCO flak and the critics of 
open source.

The GPL does not specify anywhere that GPL code cannot be incorporated 
into a "collective work".  So this wrong-headed notion that using GPL
code mixed with non-GPL code renders a project a "derivative work" is
absurd and unenforceable.  



On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 03:49:45AM -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 07:03:31 GMT, christos gentsis said:
> 
> > sorry about this question but i didn't understand something in all this 
> > "trade secret" situation...
> > 
> > first: Is there any impact in GNU GPL?
> 
> I'm not a lawyer, just a sysadmin/programmer who follows this sort of stuff,
> but it's most likely that this will not impact GPL-licensed software, because
> it isn't attempting to restrict what things can be put into GPL software.
> 
> If anything, all this law *actually* does is get Cherokee law to match what
> current US law *already* says.
> 
> > second: does this US law means that everything could be a "trade 
> > secret"? even something like the  GUI? or a process bar? and in case 
> > that someone will register them what is going to happens?
> 
> It's not a US law - it's a proposed Cherokee law (In the US, there exist
> some Indian reservations that are somewhat autonomous and able to make their
> own laws).
> 
> The actual text of the law as proposed is posted at
> http://www.gadugi.org/article.php?story=2005010611364165
> 
> The Cherokee law would apparently *ban* publishing open source that
> contains a trade secret, as that would be a "Willful breach or willful
> inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy;" and therefor a no-no.
> 
> (Logic - (1)(d)(i) says it has to be a secret, (1)(d)(ii) says you have to
> apply reasonable efforts to *keep* it secret.  Therefore, *publishing* it
> would be an "improper" means under (1)(a)(iv), and thus (1)(b)(ii)(B) makes it
> "misappropriation"..)
> 
> The company can't even claim there is no "breach" or "improper means" because
> they intended to publish the source code as open source - because then it no
> longer meets the "subject of reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy"
> requirement.  If you're not even trying to keep it a secret, it's not a secret.
> 
> > third: this under US law, is it applied in EU etc????
> 
> It isn't even clear that this law would apply in the US, much less in the EU.
> 
> But that's OK, because there's no real danger here, unless you were hoping to
> use the Cherokee law to protect secrets in code you publish as open source....
> 

Re: Cherokee Nation Posts Open Source Legisation - Invites comments from Community Members

[Stephen Pollei]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2872 bytes --]

On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 09:18, root wrote:
OK I've replied to this as well at
http://www.gadugi.org/article.php?story=20041221121621283 ...
I think that your understanding of the implications of the GPL seem to
be dangerously flawed in some respects.
> 
> 
> There is no impact on the GPL and any Linux code covered under the GPL
> remains as such.  The Ga-du-gi OS is defined under the current FSF 
> definitions as a "collective work" not a "derivative work".  So all the
> folks sending mail to LKML and gadugi.org that implies otherwise
> are out in the weeds.  

The below should also be at the above mentioned url...

OK the extent of the fork has been mentioned.
However you should note that both the GPL and LGPL only give conditional
permission to include code licensed under those terms into "collective
works". Your code that is under "/arch" sure sounds like it is
interdependant with the rest of the kernel code. Further it is not a
"separate work" and a kernel compiled with your "arch" changes can't be
shipped into two independant separate binaries-- it forms one
inseparable whole that contains incompatibily licensed code. The GPL
doesn't give anyone permission to include code licensed under those
terms in these conditions.

It would be instructive for you to compare and contrast the GPL and the
LGPL to notice that altogether not giving permission to create
inseparable, dependent works that add restrictions was *intended*. If
the developers wanted to allow you to do what it is you are attempting
they would have choosen the LGPL or another license.

You should note that the kernel developers would like to see more
successful Linux forks -- you are in fact given an explicit license to
create forks the GPL. However that is your only license to do so and if
you choose to ignore it's boundaries after being repeatiibly and
publicly warned, then you are likely to incure civil liabilites from
being found a willful premeditated copyright infringer in a few
jurisdictions around the world.

I strongly suggest that instead of assuming that you seek competent
legal advice or take an educational seminar, read a faq or two or
otherwise education yourself to what the GPL implies.

So please instead of complaining that people are "out in the weeds" or
creating a "smoke screen". Maybe you should listen a little.

http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0501.1/1425.html
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl.txt
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/lgpl.txt
http://patron.fsf.org/course-offering.html
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

-- 
http://dmoz.org/profiles/pollei.html
http://sourceforge.net/users/stephen_pollei/
http://www.orkut.com/Profile.aspx?uid=2455954990164098214
http://stephen_pollei.home.comcast.net/
GPG Key fingerprint = EF6F 1486 EC27 B5E7 E6E1  3C01 910F 6BB5 4A7D 9677

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: Cherokee Nation Posts Open Source Legisation - Invites comments from Community Members

[jmerkey]

The current Gadugi implementation has compiled the Linux kernel as a 
standalone elf64 module that loads as
an application on the Gadugi kernel, with the /arch portions stripped 
and mapped into Gadugi.  Gadugi has it's
own elf64 loader (non-GPL). The GPL language states that the "collective 
work" definition refers to code sections
which constitute part of a "whole" unpo which the "separate" work in based.

This is a collective work which is "not based upon Linux", Linux runs as 
a kernel app.  Provided the two
code bases remain separate, there are no GPL issues with the current 
language.  Gadugi is a separate
elf64 module with it's own loader, services, etc.  The fact that Linux 
is now "based on" another operating
system reverses the license language (thanks Richard S. for inserting 
this) and the GPL also states
that independent works are "separate" and not affected by this license. 

I realize there may be many people who take issue with this, but this is 
the laguage, and yes, GPL code can be taken and
used this way.  The two code bases are maintained seprately and not 
compiled together.  But Linux can be loaded
as as Elf application, and in this sense it is a "seperate" work and 
whole in itself.   



Stephen Pollei wrote:

>On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 09:18, root wrote:
>OK I've replied to this as well at
>http://www.gadugi.org/article.php?story=20041221121621283 ...
>I think that your understanding of the implications of the GPL seem to
>be dangerously flawed in some respects.
>  
>
>>There is no impact on the GPL and any Linux code covered under the GPL
>>remains as such.  The Ga-du-gi OS is defined under the current FSF 
>>definitions as a "collective work" not a "derivative work".  So all the
>>folks sending mail to LKML and gadugi.org that implies otherwise
>>are out in the weeds.  
>>    
>>
>
>The below should also be at the above mentioned url...
>
>OK the extent of the fork has been mentioned.
>However you should note that both the GPL and LGPL only give conditional
>permission to include code licensed under those terms into "collective
>works". Your code that is under "/arch" sure sounds like it is
>interdependant with the rest of the kernel code. Further it is not a
>"separate work" and a kernel compiled with your "arch" changes can't be
>shipped into two independant separate binaries-- it forms one
>inseparable whole that contains incompatibily licensed code. The GPL
>doesn't give anyone permission to include code licensed under those
>terms in these conditions.
>
>It would be instructive for you to compare and contrast the GPL and the
>LGPL to notice that altogether not giving permission to create
>inseparable, dependent works that add restrictions was *intended*. If
>the developers wanted to allow you to do what it is you are attempting
>they would have choosen the LGPL or another license.
>
>You should note that the kernel developers would like to see more
>successful Linux forks -- you are in fact given an explicit license to
>create forks the GPL. However that is your only license to do so and if
>you choose to ignore it's boundaries after being repeatiibly and
>publicly warned, then you are likely to incure civil liabilites from
>being found a willful premeditated copyright infringer in a few
>jurisdictions around the world.
>
>I strongly suggest that instead of assuming that you seek competent
>legal advice or take an educational seminar, read a faq or two or
>otherwise education yourself to what the GPL implies.
>
>So please instead of complaining that people are "out in the weeds" or
>creating a "smoke screen". Maybe you should listen a little.
>
>http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0501.1/1425.html
>http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl.txt
>http://www.fsf.org/licenses/lgpl.txt
>http://patron.fsf.org/course-offering.html
>http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
>
>  
>

Re: Cherokee Nation Posts Open Source Legisation - Invites comments from Community Members

[Daniel Egger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 709 bytes --]

On 12.01.2005, at 18:18, root wrote:

> There is no impact on the GPL and any Linux code covered under the GPL
> remains as such.  The Ga-du-gi OS is defined under the current FSF
> definitions as a "collective work" not a "derivative work".  So all the
> folks sending mail to LKML and gadugi.org that implies otherwise
> are out in the weeds.

Apart from the fact that someone writing mail as root can't be
taken seriously I would suggest that you
a) take the discussion elsewhere because it is more than off-topic
b) stop smoking the pipe
c) consider renaming your project to balla-balla because that one
    is easier to remember and somewhat fits the description of your
    goals

Servus,
       Daniel

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 478 bytes --]

Re: Cherokee Nation Posts Open Source Legisation - Invites comments from Community Members

[Bernd Petrovitsch]

On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 07:03 +0000, christos gentsis wrote:
[...]
> third: this under US law, is it applied in EU etc????

In EU, no US law is applied automatically. At least in theory.

	Bernd
-- 
Firmix Software GmbH                   http://www.firmix.at/
mobil: +43 664 4416156                 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
          Embedded Linux Development and Services

Re: Cherokee Nation Posts Open Source Legisation - Invites comments from Community Members

[Rik van Riel]

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005, christos gentsis wrote:

> second: does this US law means that everything could be a "trade 
> secret"? even something like the GUI? or a process bar? and in case that 
> someone will register them what is going to happens?

Only secrets can be trade secrets.

As soon as somebody else figures it out and publishes it,
it's no longer a secret, and can no longer be a trade
secret.

-- 
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan

Re: Cherokee Nation Posts Open Source Legisation - Invites comments from Community Members

[Werner Almesberger]

Rik van Riel wrote:
> Only secrets can be trade secrets.

I think he's just trying to re-invent patents under a different
name. IMHO, this isn't necessarily an outright lunatic idea, but
I wouldn't be surprised if it received a friendlier reception if
contradictory naming could be avoided.

- Werner

-- 
  _________________________________________________________________________
 / Werner Almesberger, Buenos Aires, Argentina         wa@almesberger.net /
/_http://www.almesberger.net/____________________________________________/