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

From: root (
Date: 01/12/05

  • Next message: Rafael J. Wysocki: "Re: 2.6.10-mm2: swsusp problem with resuming on batteries (AMD64)"
    Date:	Wed, 12 Jan 2005 11:18:55 -0600

    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 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, 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
    > 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....

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

  • Next message: Rafael J. Wysocki: "Re: 2.6.10-mm2: swsusp problem with resuming on batteries (AMD64)"