Re: GPL only usage of security.h

From: Greg KH (gregat_private)
Date: Sun Sep 23 2001 - 20:24:48 PDT

  • Next message: Crispin Cowan: "Re: GPL only usage of security.h"

    On Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 08:17:19PM -0700, Crispin Cowan wrote:
    > Actually yes, I vehemently object to this change.
    Why?  Don't you think that security modules that are loaded by your
    kernel should be open source?
    > The final determination is up to Linus, naturally, but I assumed all
    > along that licensing issues for LSM would be the same as they are for
    > the existing Linux loadble module and device driver interface.
    Actually they are determined by the authors of the code, just like the
    rest of the kernel is.  A number of other subsystems are moving to just
    this same kind of licensing model (IDE for instance) for 2.5.
    greg k-h
    linux-security-module mailing list

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 23 2001 - 20:30:42 PDT