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. ... Exactly. _______________________________________________ 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 : Mon Sep 24 2001 - 06:12:46 PDT