Re: OT Re: Cherokee Nation Posts Open Source Legisation

["Måns Rullgård" <mru@inprovide.com>]

root <root@mail.gadugi.org> writes:

>> > proper means by, the public; and
>> Seems word-for-word the same. And I would think that an Free or Open
>> source licensed work that is published would be "generally known to" and
>> "readily ascertainable".
>> > 
>> > 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".
>> >
>
> If the license says the receipient of a piece of code must acknowledge 
> and protect the trade secrets it contains, then it's enforceable.

If the code is available from a public http server, that doesn't make
any sense at all.

> We trump state courts on the grounds of sovereinty, so a state court
> isn't able to reverse one of our courts unless there's a question of
> Federal Law.
>
> The Federal Courts can in vary narrow areas reverese our courts, but
> since this license represents a consentual commerical transaction
> with an Indian Nation, most folks will have to appeal to the US
> supreme court to get this reversed -- the Federal Courts are bound
> by the constitutional provisions regarding sovereignty.  Makes Open

What about the rest of the world?  I'm sure nobody in Europe is bound
in any way by US laws.

-- 
Måns Rullgård
mru@inprovide.com