Re: GPL only usage of security.h

From: richard offer (offerat_private)
Date: Mon Sep 24 2001 - 11:38:02 PDT

  • Next message: Smalley, Stephen: "RE: GPL only usage of security.h"

    * frm gregat_private "09/24/01 09:16:14 -0700" | sed '1,$s/^/* /'
    *
    * 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.
    * 
    
    You are right, there is nothing that I could see that mentioned modules,
    but it has been widely accepted [1] that modules are not part of the
    kernel, they are using it via public interfaces. 
    
    [1] From "Linux Device Drivers, 2nd ed, O'Reilly, p12" 
    
        Third-party and custom modules are not part of the Linux kernel, and
    thus you're 
        not forced to license them under the GPL. A module _uses_ the kernel
    through a 
        well-defined interface, but is not part of it, simmilar to the way user
    programs 
        use the kernel through system calls. Note that the exemption to GPL
    licensing 
        applies only to modules that use the published module interface.
    Modules that 
        dig deeper into the kernel must adhere to the "derived work" terms of
    the GPL.
    
    Is that legal opinion ? No, but the fact that its appeared twice, in
    identical worded paragraphs in both editions indicates that Linus hasn't
    voiced any change of opinion.
    
    
    The issue of copyrighting of APIs is tricky, the physical file
    linux/security.h can be GPL'ed, but there's nothing to stop someone from
    re-expressing the structures in their own code base.
    
    
    richard.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Richard Offer                     Technical Lead, Trust Technology, SGI
    "Specialization is for insects"
    _______________________________________________________________________
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    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 - 11:39:55 PDT