On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 01:59:07PM -0500, Smalley, Stephen wrote: > > > 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. That is exactly the concern that I have. Please see the above mentioned network protocol hooks discussion in the linux-kernel archives for a taste of why people dislike this. A number of kernel programmers have expressed to me their concern about this patch touching so many different portions of the kernel. Also, now that Crispin has stated that one of the goals of this patch is to allow binary kernel security modules, acceptance by those maintainers of this patch seems impossible. thanks, 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 - 12:17:41 PDT