Re: Secure Computing statement of assurance

From: Russell Coker (russellat_private)
Date: Sat Jul 27 2002 - 04:35:00 PDT

  • Next message: Russell Coker: "Fwd: Re: SE Linux and patents"

    On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 12:56, Ben McGinnes wrote:
    > Further to this, if they really wanted to, SCC could even create a new
    > incoroporated entity (e.g. HGLFTNOASHFWG, Pty. Ltd.[1]) to sell the
    > patent to which would, of course, not be bound by any of the decisions
    > of SCC.  Even if it is essentially all the same people.
    
    I think so.
    
    > Essentially this means that they have provided something to placate
    > us,
    
    Who has it placated?  Certainly not me!
    
    > but which they can reverse at any point in the future should it
    > fit a new corporate strategy.  From a commercial view point it's quite
    > reasonable, but from the GPL/development point of view it is
    > essentially a useless gesture.
    
    Even from a commercial point of view it's not reasonable.  If someone tried 
    to screw over one of my clients in such a fashion I'd react in the same way.
    
    > From a PR point of view it's potentially even more damaging to SCC
    > (depending on whether the wider geek/development community interprets
    > it as an honest attempt to resolve the issue or an under-handed
    > trick).
    
    I haven't seen any evidence of honest attempts to resolve the issue from SCC.
    
    
    
    Russell Coker
    _______________________________________________
    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 : Sat Jul 27 2002 - 04:37:19 PDT