Re: License go no go?

From: Greg KH (gregat_private)
Date: Fri Oct 25 2002 - 23:38:19 PDT

  • Next message: Russell Coker: "Re: License go no go?"

    On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 11:09:21PM -0700, Crispin Cowan wrote:
    >    * If you provide an LSM module, you *might* be able to get away with
    >      keeping the module proprietary. Emphasis on "might"; this is
    >      highly controversial, and there are those among the authors of the
    >      Linux kernel who passionately believe that all LSM modules are
    >      derived works of the Linux kernel, and thus subject to its GPL
    >      license.
    
    There are also a number of Linux programmers, with copyrights on either
    the security.h file, or the code where the LSM hooks that have publicly
    stated that they would sue any makers of proprietary LSM modules.
    
    > If you plan to ship a proprietary module, you do so at your own risk,
    > and you had best get your own IP lawyer.
    
    That's the wisest thing written on this list in a while :)
    
    thanks,
    
    greg k-h
    _______________________________________________
    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 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 23:41:33 PDT