Re: License go no go?

From: Greg KH (gregat_private)
Date: Sat Oct 26 2002 - 09:28:29 PDT

  • Next message: Dragan Stancevic: "Re: License go no go?"

    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