Greg KH wrote: >My comment in security.h that I proposed [1] does not add any additional >constraints to the license that is currently on the file. That's not at all clear to me, especially considering Linus's position on binary-only loadable kernel modules (they're allowed, roughly speaking). I propose that we don't even try to make any special regulations on this topic in either direction. If Linus and the kernel developers think this qualifies for special wording, let's leave that call up to them, and omit any special wording for now. Our charter is to develop good code. Does this proposal seem reasonable? <TANGENT> (By the way, there is a difference between the word "include" and the cpp syntax "#include". They have seven letters in common, but it's not clear that the two notions are necessarily equivalent when it comes to licenses like the GPL. To take this to an absurd extreme, one might argue that any non-GPL user-level application running on Linux dare not #include anything in /usr/include/linux/, but it is pretty hard for me to see how such a position could be plausible.) </TANGENT> _______________________________________________ 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 : Wed Sep 26 2001 - 09:50:40 PDT