Re: Fwd: Re: SE Linux and patents

From: jmjonesat_private
Date: Sat Jul 27 2002 - 14:18:20 PDT

  • Next message: Ben McGinnes: "Re: Secure Computing statement of assurance"

    The first line of the "Assurance" says:
    
    "
    SELinux is a form of the Linux operating system kernel that performs
    certain security features and functions.
    "
    
    With the advent of SELinux being a loadable module, under LSM, I don't
    think this is still a true statement.  The Operating System Kernel has an
    interface that allows the SELinux module to be OPTIONALLY installed. 
    
    Ergo, I would think that the entire assertion is challengable.  YES, I've
    heard for many months that modules BECOME part of the kernel, but is that
    the same, legally, as including the code that allows an extension to the
    kernel as part of the kernel?
    
    This assertion, IMHO (and IANAL) provides very little comfort, and
    preserves SCC's right to explore patent violations in the courts.  I'd
    like to hear a learned opinion FROM a lawyer with regard to this, but I
    think I will have to exclude SELinux from any "interoperable" product that
    I may release, at this point.  If for no other reason than to avoid
    building a huge base of installed systems that SCC can later elicit
    licensing fees from. 
    
    There are many other modules that LSM supports, so this is not an LSM
    issue, to me, just a sad turn of litigious events.
    
    Sincerely,
    J. Melvin Jones
    
    *-------------------------------------------------------
    * J. Melvin Jones                http://www.jmjones.com/
    * Webmaster, System Administrator, Network Administrator
    * ------------------------------------------------------
    
    On Sat, 27 Jul 2002, Russell Coker wrote:
    
    > 
    > 
    > ----------  Forwarded Message  ----------
    > 
    > Subject: Re: SE Linux and patents
    > Date: 27 Jul 2002 18:31:31 +0100
    > From: Alan Cox <alanat_private>
    > To: Russell Coker <russellat_private>
    > 
    > On Sat, 2002-07-27 at 15:31, Russell Coker wrote:
    > > Here's some messages from the SE Linux list and the LSM list about the
    > > latest statement from SCC.
    > 
    > The assurance simply says you cannot use it. Using it for authorization
    > for applications, or services is excluded. That makes it useless
    > 
    > -------------------------------------------------------
    > 
    > -- 
    > I do not get viruses because I do not use MS software.
    > If you use Outlook then please do not put my email address in your
    > address-book so that WHEN you get a virus it won't use my address in the
    > >From field.
    > _______________________________________________
    > linux-security-module mailing list
    > linux-security-moduleat_private
    > http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module
    > 
    
    _______________________________________________
    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 - 14:21:55 PDT