Re: GPL only usage of security.h

From: Sandy Harris (sandyat_private)
Date: Mon Sep 24 2001 - 06:12:17 PDT

  • Next message: James Morris: "[PATCH] fix for 2.4.10 initialization"

    Crispin Cowan wrote:
    > >>Actually yes, I vehemently object to this change.
    Me too.
    > >Why?  Don't you think that security modules that are loaded by your
    > >kernel should be open source?
    > >
    > 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.
    Of course open source has advantages, especially for security code with
    its audit requirements.
    > But what this change does is impose a singular license on security
    > modules (GPL).
    We want a license the same as for any other module.
    > ... The reason that loadable modules are not subject to
    > the GPL is that they are using an explicit interface, and thus (like
    > applications) are not derived from the kernel, but rather simply depend
    > on it.
    > I see no reason why LSM should deviate from this path. ...
    linux-security-module mailing list

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Sep 24 2001 - 06:12:46 PDT