<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:black;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:black;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoPlainText>> Could you however elaborate on why the additional restriction<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> would not be OSD-compliant?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Why are you trying to "open source" your additional clause forbidding key disclosure? It is hard for me to recognize such private and confidential commercial transactions as open source.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Already some distributors commercially license their own software applications along with private usage keys. That combination of software+key is not itself open source software, regardless of whether source code is made available to the software itself. But it is perfectly typical and allowed as a commercial transaction.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>NEVERTHELESS, the <b>*open source components*</b> in those commercial software applications remain open source regardless of the overall commercial license or the private usage keys. It is appropriate (actually <b>*required*</b>) that commercial distributors provide the names, licenses, and (usually) the source code of those open source components even if the private usage keys are unpublished. I believe that a separate commercial license forbidding key disclosure is a separate commercial transaction that has no effect on the *<b>open source components</b>*. Those remain free regardless of the usage restrictions on the commercial amalgamation. See OSD #7:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'>7. Distribution of License<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'>The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>BSD by itself does that. Your addition does not.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>/Larry<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>-----Original Message-----<br>From: Zluty Sysel [mailto:zluty.sysel@gmail.com] <br>Sent: Thursday, February 5, 2015 5:16 AM<br>To: license-discuss@opensource.org<br>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] 3-clause BSD with additional clause forbidding key disclosure</p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Hi there,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Simon Phipps <<a href="mailto:webmink@opensource.org"><span style='color:black;text-decoration:none'>webmink@opensource.org</span></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Zluty Sysel <<a href="mailto:zluty.sysel@gmail.com"><span style='color:black;text-decoration:none'>zluty.sysel@gmail.com</span></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>> The issue however is that there is a certain reluctance not to <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>> include this in the source code license, since one of the .c files <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>> contains a very distinct placeholder (set to NULL) for the Private <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>> Key in it. The clause in the license would serve as a reminder that <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>> those Private Keys (which sometimes are shared across all employees <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>> of a single<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>> company) are not redistributable even when the source code contains <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>> one (albeit a NULL development one). Since Private Keys are <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>> distributed in a fashion that makes it difficult for them to be <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>> attached to a license, the company wants to include this in each <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>> source code file so that users do not inadvertently commit to public <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>> repos with the Private Key set.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> Surely this is a matter to handle via a 1:1 contract with your <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> customer? I have doubts that the additional restriction you are <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> proposing is OSD-compliant.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Thanks for the reply.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Yes, and they do have a contract with each customer that receives the Private Key, along with the source code that goes with it.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Could you however elaborate on why the additional restriction would not be OSD-compliant? Do you think it could be reworded so that it does become compliant?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Zluty<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>License-discuss mailing list<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><a href="mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org"><span style='color:black;text-decoration:none'>License-discuss@opensource.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><a href="http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss"><span style='color:black;text-decoration:none'>http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss</span></a><o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>