Re: GPL only usage of security.h

From: Casey Schaufler (caseyat_private)
Date: Mon Sep 24 2001 - 09:07:40 PDT

  • Next message: Greg KH: "Re: [PATCH] fix for 2.4.10 initialization"

    Crispin Cowan wrote:
    > So no, mandatory GPL for LSM modules is not even close to acceptable.
    I agree with Crispin. For the LSM facility to be generally useful
    it must be available to all, including those whose license requirements
    differ from the "norm". It is very reasonable to expect LSM to be
    used to produce classified* security models, and a scheme which
    makes doing so difficult will impede the progress of Linux.
    * The virtue of classifications and government secrets is
      neither endorsed nor condemmed.
    Casey Schaufler				Manager, Trust Technology, SGI
    caseyat_private				voice: 650.933.1634
    casey_pat_private			Pager: 888.220.0607
    linux-security-module mailing list

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Sep 24 2001 - 09:10:03 PDT