On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Greg KH wrote: > Three of the four copyright owners of the security.h file have agreed to > this change. Please reconsider your stance, for the sake of the > project. > May I humbly ask who of the many people who have contributed to this list are the "copyright holders"? Greg, check with your attorney again: this has been an open software project, and, therefore, is a cumulative effort. Are you giving people cause to file lawsuits related to fraud? I don't think that's your intention. Listen, I enjoy a good snake-fight as much as anybody, but this project has always been GPL and the *implication* has been that it will fall under the "existant" policies, which de-facto allow use of the kernel if you don't derive from it. APIs have usually been considered the boundary of both the kernel and the license. Furthermore I think any snake worth his/her slither can argue this project was the result of 400 people's efforts. EVERYTHING, every decimal point, every comment, every ASCII bit on the kernel side of this project is GPL... you said so yourself on this list to me a few weeks ago (not that you have any "authority", but it goes to an assumption.) Do you remember? It was a rebuttal to my caution that there may be others who launch off this project to build-a-better-mousetrap. I have to admit, that I can see how to do that, but you did say that, Greg. The ideas that went into the code came from a large number of people. I can prove that even a little bit of it came (partially) from humble olde ME. Is Dr. Wagner a copyright holder? He contributed greatly. Now you seek to shut him out? You know what? I respect LSM. I think it's output is a special-case solution that is both efficient and effective for what it does. I also think that it is a triumpth of open software. You're arguing that you want to impose the requirement that anybody who uses your interface GPL their output. That's not functional, that's not even considerate toward the common cause of Linux Security. You build something that is useful (no matter how limited) and you want to deny anybody who won't share his code from using it? That's OPEN SOURCE ZEALOUSY. Add the following: // The LSM interface was a result of an industry-wide effort to create // a common interface to the Linux Kernel that facilitates Linux Security // by providing an interface that is relevant and useful to a variety // of Security Solutions. As such, we believe that we have proven the // value and efficacy of Open Software. We therefore would like to state // our belief that Open Software Developed modules will be more reliable // and more effective than closed-source, binary modules. We therefore // request that anyone including this file give full consideration to // releasing their code for community review, for the common good of all. // // Furthermore, we grant no license or privilege to any company or // individual to include this file or access this work beyond // the most restrictive of those specifically granted for loadable kernel // modules as specified elsewhere in the kernel code and documentation. // // Open Source Modules are BETTER. If, as you've stated before several times, that your "clause" asks for nothing new, how would this be less applicable? >thanks, > > greg k-h > Thanks, J. Melvin Jones P.S. -- How does arguing that an open, community project can add a few lines at the end that imposes new/unexpected restrictions to the use of that project work toward your apparent goal of encouraging open software development? It seems to me it works against that very thing. |>------------------------------------------------------ || 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 : Tue Sep 25 2001 - 15:29:52 PDT