Greg KH wrote: >On Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 09:10:14PM -0700, Crispin Cowan wrote: > >>I think that code (especially security code) can be more secure if the >>source is available. Further, open source code can grow better through >>the ability of community developers to improve features and fix bugs. >>But what this change does is impose a singular license on security >>modules (GPL). >> >No it does not. Please see the file module.h in the 2.4.10 kernel tree >for a list of the acceptable licenses, like my wording stated. > Point noted: you're merely mandating OSD-compliant licensing. This is still contrary to (at least my) original intent in the LSM project. Linux has always permitted proprietary modules. The rationale, is that a module that does not change the kernel is not a derived work of the kernel, it is an application *for* the Linux that needs direct access to kernel space. Permitting proprietary modules is the same as permitting proprietary applications. I do not see why LSM should be different. >>Perhaps we should LGPL the security.h. Does that create problems? >> >I would object to this. That would be granting the explicit right for >it to be used in closed source binaries. I do not want to grant that >explicit right. > That is exactly what I always intended LSM to do. Crispin -- Crispin Cowan, Ph.D. Chief Scientist, WireX Communications, Inc. http://wirex.com Security Hardened Linux Distribution: http://immunix.org Available for purchase: http://wirex.com/Products/Immunix/purchase.html _______________________________________________ linux-security-module mailing list linux-security-moduleat_private http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 23 2001 - 23:23:36 PDT