On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 09:07:40AM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote: > 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. I am not proposing to change anything from what currently is required to do if you add a security module patch to the kernel _today_. 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 - 10:03:11 PDT