Re: License go no go?

From: Greg KH (gregat_private)
Date: Sat Oct 26 2002 - 14:54:26 PDT

  • Next message: Crispin Cowan: "Re: License go no go?"

    On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 02:08:09PM -0700, Dragan Stancevic wrote:
    > On Friday 25 October 2002 23:38, Greg KH wrote:
    > > 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.
    > 
    > Well what about the instance of writing your own headers? I've been working 
    > with driving hardware mostly so I am thinking of an example where a specific 
    > piece of hardware stores a specific structure in memory:
    > struct {
    > 	u32 cmd;
    > 	u32 status;
    > };
    > 
    > Would that make l-k programmers liable because drivers for windows existed 
    > first? As it was explained to me by a lawyer things that can be done only one 
    > way are not considered derived or infringedupon. It falls under a separate 
    > category.
    
    I don't know, as I am not a lawyer, sorry.
    
    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 - 14:57:32 PDT