RE: GPL only usage of security.h

Previous message: Smalley, Stephen: "RE: GPL only usage of security.h"
Maybe in reply to: Greg KH: "GPL only usage of security.h"
Next in thread: KRAMER,STEVEN (HP-USA,ex1): "RE: GPL only usage of security.h"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

steven_kramerat_private

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg KH [mailto:gregat_private]

> What wasn't mentioned was the fact that this would allow 
> people to write
> closed source security modules for Linux.  I was just trying to
> explicitly forbid this as I realized that this might be a nasty side
> effect of us having the LSM patch in the kernel (see my previous
> comments about closed source security kernel modules.)
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h
> 

I favor being able to write closed source security modules.  The kernel and
LSM are open, and we all (in the mailing list) should have no problem with
that.  However, I always expected that the modules could be closed by those
that chose to do so.  At least 3 others appear to agree.  Since the
additional license wording comes close to the end of LSM development, it's
only right to leave the licensing as-is.

--steve k

_______________________________________________
linux-security-module mailing list
linux-security-moduleat_private
http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module