I would probably refactor the code so the authentication key (or routine) goes into a separate file (authentication file) and distribute that file under a different license. Everything except that will go open source and instruction to users to replace the authentication file.
You decide how much you want to open source. Convention says that you should at least provide enough to be useful. Open source never requires you to disclose your private key so is my reading that you will satisfy the convention that you provide enough information (such as API documentation) to allow others to substitute and implement their own authentication key/method in place of yours. Putting authentication details in a a separate file and license it separately is an easy mean to achieve this. Besides, separating them makes it easier to prevent accidental disclosure of your private keys. Best Regards, Cinly ***** I do not read footer and will not be bounded by them. If they are legally enforceable then this one always triumph yours. On 4 February 2015 at 12:11, Gervase Markham <[email protected]> wrote: > On 03/02/15 17:21, Zluty Sysel wrote: > > I have a set of source files that I would like to open source using a > > standard 3-Clause BSD but my company would not like that a certain set > > of Private Keys used for authentication be disclosed along with the > > code. > > You don't need to write a new license for this. Merely provide the > Private Key to your customers under a license other than the BSD license > - e.g. an agreement which has a confidentiality clause prohibiting > disclosure. > > Gerv > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss >
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
