Re: SELinux to GPL or not to GPL

From: jmjonesat_private
Date: Thu Jun 06 2002 - 16:13:27 PDT

  • Next message: Crispin Cowan: "Re: SELinux to GPL or not to GPL"

    The following quoted-back content is also my understanding of GPL
    (although, I only understand every third word my lawyer speaks to me.)  I
    have accessed some sites that suggest that this issue was raised when
    SELinux was first planned and seemed to be answered by a license to
    SELinux that covered "purpose".  What I did not see was a declaration of a
    perpetual GPL use-license. 
    
    It appears to me that this is merely a licensing issue with the SELinux
    module and doesn't impact LSM or other modules directly.  Because of the
    law, the Patent Owners *MUST* assert their rights if they ever expect to
    have any recourse, and I think this may be a "dot i's and cross t's"
    issue.  It might not be a real issue if NSA is working with them toward an
    understanding. 
    
    I don't see how it can possibly refer back to the *interface* which is the
    main goal of this project (am I wrong?), except on the basis that
    SELinux(NSA) was a major contributor.  I don't believe there's anything in
    the interface that specifically REQUIRES the use of the patents
    referenced.  Additionally, I think that modules have a certain level of
    "wiggle" (um, personal-legal-term) with regard to use of patents and
    new-but-unpatented-processes, under GPL. 
    
    While I will not start the debate about the licensing of the LSM project,
    I think the decisions that have come before are rock-solid.
    
    For my purposes, a license or court decision regarding SELinux's use of
    this technology would be most interesting, and I'd hope and expect that
    NSA is in negotiations now, or that SOMEBODY will say that the declaration
    is invalid.  I expect a blanket license to use this technology in GPL'd
    systems, but I am concerned about proprietary rights when *associated*
    with GPL, so I thank my govt for yet another demonstration/decision.
    
    Sincerely, And Somewhat Concerned,
    J. Melvin Jones
    
     On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, Crispin Cowan wrote:
    
    > Admissions Office wrote:
    > 
    > >Ok - so how did all the work get done under the GPL? Where do things go from here? I mean we have all these smart people and work is now in the area of what almost seems like - "darn lawyers."   Hmmmmm..
    > >
    > My undrstanding of the GPL vs. patents:
    > 
    >     * If (/big/ if) the patent owner chose to distribute a modification
    >       to a GPL'd program that embodied their patent, then the only right
    >       they had to distribute the modified program required them to share
    >       the patent under the GPL.
    >     * If some /other/ party employed a patented method in GPL'd code,
    >       then the patent holder still holds all of their rights. Whatever
    >       legal remedies the parties (& the court) agree to apply, but the
    >       friendly versioun would be "cease & decist distributing code using
    >       our patented method."
    > 
    > It is not exactly clear to me that TE was distributed as an enhancement 
    > to the Linux kernel by SCC, but it sure looks like it. SCC should 
    > confirm or deny this point. If what appears to have happened actually 
    > happened, then I suspect that the TE patent has been contributed to the 
    > community under the GPL, and thus SELinux should not have a problem.
    > 
    > It is also not clear to me what declarations, if any, TIS/NAI have ever 
    > made about the status of the DTE patent. The GPL'd implementation of DTE 
    > may be in trouble, depending on what TIS/NAI chooses to do.
    > 
    > Caveat: I am not a lawyer, nor am I party to any of these transactions. 
    > None of the above statements should be considered authoritative. To my 
    > knowledge, neither WireX nor LSM employ methods covered by the TE and 
    > DTE patents.
    > 
    > My thanks to all participants for not turning this into a flame-fest of 
    > what licenses /should/ be used. Lets keep it that way :)
    > 
    > Crispin
    > 
    > -- 
    > Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.
    > Chief Scientist, WireX Communications, Inc. http://wirex.com
    > Security Hardened Linux Distribution:       http://immunix.org
    > Available for purchase: http://wirex.com/Products/Immunix/purchase.html
    > 
    > 
    
    
    
    *-------------------------------------------------------
    * J. Melvin Jones                http://www.jmjones.com/
    * Webmaster, System Administrator, Network Administrator
    * ------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    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 : Thu Jun 06 2002 - 16:22:02 PDT