On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 02:29:44AM +0200, Martin Stricker wrote: > > Conclusion: I absolutely like the idea that only OSF-compliant software > can use LSM. However I see one problem here (my point 3), and the fact > this change (is it a change or not?) is introduced this late. I want to apologize for bringing this up so late in development of this patch. I also should have warned some of the effected parties ahead of time, before bringing it up. Crispin, Stephan, and James, I apologize. As for why bringing it up now? I've realized that if this patch is accepted into the kernel it would weaken the licensing requirements of a security module (in the open source sense) since the beginning of the project. With the current talk on lkml about licenses in the kernel, the addition of the MODULE_LICENSE macro and a list of acceptable licenses in the latest 2.4.10 release, and being asked about the license issues of the LSM patch by other kernel developers, I knew I had to bring up the issue. 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 - 21:05:15 PDT