Re: License go no go?

From: Russell Coker (russellat_private)
Date: Sat Oct 26 2002 - 04:53:26 PDT

  • Next message: Greg KH: "Re: License go no go?"

    On Sat, 26 Oct 2002 08:38, Greg KH wrote:
    > 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.
    
    How is writing a proprietary LSM kernel module any different from any other 
    proprietary kernel module?
    
    -- 
    http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/   My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
    http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/  Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
    http://www.coker.com.au/postal/    Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
    http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/  My home page
    
    _______________________________________________
    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 Oct 26 2002 - 04:55:02 PDT