On Mon, 2002-07-01 at 15:57, Seth Arnold wrote: > On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 03:34:57PM -0700, Clint Byrum wrote: > > I think I have decided that, while SELinux and Type Enforcement(tm... > > hehe) are the right way to do this, I'd rather not deal with the > > licensing issues. What is the best alternative? > > I'd suggest writing to NAI and ask them how they intend to enforce their > patent. I'd also suggest staying tuned for a response from SCC about how > they intend to handle their patent. I think they realize it matters very > much to the SELinux users, so they will likely report their final > decisions rather publicly. > Yes, and let me make something perfectly clear. It is definitely within SCC and NAI's privilege to do whatever they like with their patents. They probably should have made things clear earlier on, but they didn't, so we'll consider it a lesson learned. That said, I do not have the luxury of time to wait for an answer. I can't spend resources iplementing some of the TE policies that I would need for my project, and then have a new licensing requirement to deal with, one that I might not be able to deal with. I'd much rather work with a known situation. > -- > http://immunix.org/ _______________________________________________ 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 Jul 01 2002 - 16:15:32 PDT