While me and mine have retreated to "enlightened self-disinterest" status with regard to this project, I feel compelled to say a word or two about this debate, from the perspective of STILL hoping LSM can be useful to a wide audience. I have no doubt that what I argue against will probably gain acceptance. Still, I feel that I should voice a position that is unpopular, but worthy of consideration on this list. Statement of Deeply Felt Belief: I believe that the product of any person's efforts belongs to that person. As such, it is the right and privilege of that person to decide if it will be released, if it will be shared, and how it will be used. If Greg wants to release his efforts vis-a-vis LSM to the universe at large, that is his and only his right. In keeping with this, I do not believe that it is Greg's right to make any decision about MY product, and how I use it. Nor is it his or LSM's right to make that decision about any of the many projects I hope have been inspired by this list. I believe (although I probably didn't do as much as I'd have liked to along this line) that I provided at least SOME product to LSM. I think there are dozens of others who have done the same: even if it was time spent thinking and not arguing publicly. I, for one, am very disturbed by the change that is proposed in the licensing. If that had been proposed 5 months ago, I would have applied NO resources to this project, and I suspect a fair (maybe not majority) percentage of people who have argued and either died or been accepted here might have done the same thing. Perhaps my mistake and I'll have to "eat it". Whatever the decision is on this issue, let it be unanimous. Since LSM is near-end, it's a travesty for the majority to steal the minority's product. If LSM is to succeed, it must inspire the widest possible interest in Linux security. If it is ONLY aimed at Open Software, you are eliminating ANYBODY with time, money, and effort that can be applied to that purpose for commercial purposes, potentially, from "LSM's supporters." Leave the licensing as it is: GPL for the shared effort in the interface and "undeclared: send them all to "court" and let "the judge" sort them out" as far as proprietary/private code in modules. It may not be the best way for LSM to win the KD's, politically, but it's the RIGHT way. Don't further restrict the license, unless you want a battle or two and can pay for it. :) (Not from me... I got other plans, now.) Sincerely, J. Melvin Jones P.S. -- You're just working against your cause with this change. There WILL be alternatives, and they can exploit this thinking to win support. |>------------------------------------------------------ || J. MELVIN JONES jmjonesat_private |>------------------------------------------------------ || Microcomputer Systems Consultant || Software Developer || Web Site Design, Hosting, and Administration || Network and Systems Administration |>------------------------------------------------------ || http://www.jmjones.com/ |>------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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 - 13:54:58 PDT