On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 01:53:26PM +0200, Russell Coker wrote: > 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? For the most part, it isn't :) The minor exception being that people have stated publicly the above, and the use of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() to explicitly document the author's intentions. Please make sure to point these lines to any IP lawyer that you might be consulting. 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 : Sat Oct 26 2002 - 09:32:18 PDT