On Friday 25 October 2002 23:09, Crispin Cowan wrote: > I agree: Linus did not fully answer the question of whether proprietary > LSM modules are possible. However, even if Linus did answer the > question, his answer might not be authoritative. My humble opinion: Yeah, I understand that his answer might not be authoritative since there are so many copyright holders on the linux kernel code. > * If you patch the Linux kernel directly, it is inescapable: your > patch is GPL'd code. > * 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. I agree on the issue of patching the kernel directly, the thing that seems a bit fuzzy to me is a lodable module that would change values of variables in some of the kernel structures. Such change would only affect the way the GPL'd code is executed but does not change the code itself. I understand that if you have copyrighted code that does something and someone else uses it that is derived works, but I can't see the values that variables hold be under the same restrictions. Everybody would be suing everybody. But from reading some the opinions on l-k some people seem to imply that they consider that derived works also. > BIG Caveat: I am not a lawyer, and my opinion here *certainly* is not > authoritative. If you plan to ship a proprietary module, you do so at > your own risk, and you had best get your own IP lawyer. For sure. -- Peace can only come as a natural consequence of universal enlightenment. -Dr. Nikola Tesla _______________________________________________ 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 - 13:52:44 PDT