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