On Mon, 2002-07-29 at 09:43, Valdis.Kletnieksat_private wrote: > On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 10:24:52 CDT, "Westerman, Mark" <Mark.Westermanat_private> said: > > > SCC by accepting the Sole Source Contract from the NSA and performing > > the work by modifying Linux you accepted the terms of the GPL. Since > > Linux uses the GPL, SCC was required by LAW to accept the terms of the > > GPL. They modified Linux and distributed SELinux to the NSA. > > If SCC was legally a contractor producing a custom work for the NSA, then the > modified Linux is the NSA's, and NSA is prohibited from distributing it. > Heh.. Linux, even modified, is still the "Intellectual Property" of anyone who has done work on the modified kernel. Those people have licensed the work under the GPL. Therefore, this modified Linux's code must be distributed to anyone who receives the binaries, as per the terms of the GPL. Once you've received GPL'd programs/code, you are granted the same rights as those of the party who modified said works. Since the GPL would preclude any contracts referring to Linux, I think the NSA has every right to redistribute this work. Of course, the patent precludes the GPL, so this is where it gets sort of sticky. SCC modified Linux by adding their own patented system to it. By doing this, they essentially licensed their code under the GPL, which says you can't have patented code in a GPL program, unless it is licensed for everyone freely. Since they willingly licensed their code under the GPL (READ the damn thing before you go using it people!), I think they nullified their patent claims on that code. But, of course, IANAL. _______________________________________________ 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 29 2002 - 10:26:48 PDT