> 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. I think that the concern is that the kernel developers may balk at accepting LSM into the mainstream kernel if it enables closed source security modules, just as they have previously balked at some network protocol hooks that would have (unintentionally) enabled closed source protocol implementations. > 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. This might be true, but it doesn't help your argument. Suppose that you can do this. Then we can add Greg's suggested wording to security.h in order to satisfy the kernel developers and people who want to develop closed source security modules can re-express the structures in their own code, as you say. Of course, they'll have to keep them consistent with the actual security.h file. _______________________________________________ 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 - 12:00:41 PDT