> -----Original Message----- > From: Greg KH [mailto:gregat_private] > > On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 10:55:29AM -0400, KRAMER,STEVEN > (HP-USA,ex1) wrote: > > I also cast my vote with Crispin and Sandy to exclude the > new licensing > > language. This is changing the rules in midstream, and does affect > > companies that spent significant sums in LSM-targeted > development already. > > Ah, so I am guessing that you are basing your HP Secure Linux > development on the LSM patch? The released product was not based on LSM. As far as future products go, all I can say is we are aware of LSM and are tracking its progress. We are in favor of LSM as a security framework, even though as a company we are not making any product committments to LSM. > > All of the kernel programmers I have spoken with (admittedly a small > sample) all like it. I think this will get our patch accepted even > easier. I hope they make their decision on LSM based on much more than the license wording. :-) > greg k-h --steve k _______________________________________________ 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 - 11:12:44 PDT