Re: SELinux to GPL or not to GPL

From: jmjonesat_private
Date: Thu Jun 06 2002 - 17:25:19 PDT

  • Next message: Seth Arnold: "Re: SELinux to GPL or not to GPL"

    On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, Crispin Cowan wrote:
    
    > jmjonesat_private wrote:
    > 
    > >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.
    > >
    > This is misinformation. What JMJones says applies to TRADEMARK, not 
    > patents. Patent holder's rights endure, regardless of prior actions. See 
    > the UNISYS/GIF patent fiasco.
    
    Worser than I'd thought...
    
    I apologize for my misunderstanding, if that's what it was.  While rights
    may persist, it's the obligation (in my understanding) of the
    patent-holder to pursue recourse, is it not?  While it may be unnecessary
    for them to "claim in advance", it still is their right to jump users
    and/or producers after-the-fact if they're property rights.
    
    I simply seek to have an "authoritive" response from Secure Computing
    and/or SELinux, with regard to distribution of the source code for SELinux
    via the LSM mechanism and distribution.  If there's no-issue, I would like
    to hear it, rather than listen to "long-stretched-silence" and think my
    product is "future-challengable." 
    
    Apparently, SELinux can apply a mechanism that doesn't infringe... I'm not
    well-versed enough to declare that it has not.
    
    I still see no reason why this issue refers to the LSM interface.
    
    > Since there is currently no dispute, don't hold your breath waiting for 
    > a court decision.
    
    Well, no: there's no dispute in the courts of which I know.  And I do not
    seek to create a basis for one, but I think *I* and others are concerned
    about this: we'd like to distribute (for commercial use) the stock kernel
    and provide SELinux as ONE OF MANY solutions.  If we're legally endangered
    by the licensing of SELinux, we'll have to remove it and only include
    other solutions. 
    
    There's just one thing we'd like, out here in "listener land", which is a
    joint statement by the NSA and Secure Computing that SELinux is not
    subject to further licensing requirements if we should include it in our
    products if they are used by commercial concerns. 
    
    My current understanding is that SELinux is validly GPL'd, so we may
    distribute this as an optional module/compiled solution, and modify it
    under that license.  This (minor) glitch is somewhat worrisome, so we're
    just "on hold."  Would SELinux's legal department (or anybody else's,
    ESPECIALLY the owners of TE?) be willing to assuage our concerns, with
    regard to this issue? 
    
    > 
    > The statements from SCC regarding the TE patent are a little bit mumbly, 
    > but seem to say that you can use it freely. SELinux users would probably 
    > be more comfortable with an explicit declaration that SCC is releasing 
    > the patent under the GPL.
    
    I've read these, and, yeah, they're mumbly.  It DOES appear to ME that
    SELinux can be distributed under GPL without issue.  Did they intend to
    release this technology to the Open Software market, or just to "mumble"
    until it was commercially viable and then pursue licenses. 
    
    > 
    > The most serious issue is the DTE patent, and its implications for the 
    > open source DTE LSM module. I am not aware of any statements from NAI 
    > regarding the availability of the DTE patent.
    
    I know little of this, but TE may be the "first test."  IMHO.
    
    Regardless, the LSM interface ALLOWS SELinux, as well as numerous other
    modules.  If it's JUST an SELinux problem (the patent), then I think we'd
    all be happy to distribute other solutions and provide a link to
    distribution of SELinux for those willing to license it appropriately.   
    
    > 
    > 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
    > 
    > 
    
    Does SELinux/NSA have any current word on this?
    J. Melvin Jones
    
    *-------------------------------------------------------
    * 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 - 17:37:36 PDT