On Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 11:21:21PM -0700, Crispin Cowan wrote: > > 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. Please read the wording in the COPYING file in the kernel source tree and point out to me the place where it states that the internal kernel interfaces are not under the GPL. There is wording in there granting that right to the syscall interface, but that is all that I see. > >>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. In reading over the original messages announcing this project I do not see that stated anywhere. Am I missing something? If this is one of the goals of the project it should be mentioned right up front so that people will realize this. And if that is one of the goals that this project has, the odds of it being accepted into the kernel tree are _very_ slim. greg k-h _______________________________________________ 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 - 09:22:00 PDT