lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Sat, 30 Jun 2007 12:50:23 +0200
From:	Rene Herman <rene.herman@...il.com>
To:	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>
CC:	7eggert@....de, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	William D Waddington <william.waddington@...zmo.com>,
	Helge Hafting <helge.hafting@...el.hist.no>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: Please release a stable kernel Linux 3.0

On 06/30/2007 04:11 AM, Daniel Hazelton wrote:

> On Friday 29 June 2007 17:27:34 Rene Herman wrote:

>> Arguably (no doubt, sigh...) someone could distribute the kernel in
>> binary form but refuse to provide source for the bits marked as being
>> in the public domain alongside it -- yes, can of worms when compared to
>> GPL demands, but I believe I can see why one shouldn't even go near
>> there.
> 
> Actually, they couldn't. Second PD code became included in the kernel it
> would be covered by the GPL. If it can be shown that the kernel binary
> was the product of merging PD code in, then there is no way top refuse
> access to the PD code.

If indeed. If the PD code compiles to a standalone module then this becomes 
every bit as arguable as binary modules. That's the "(no doubt, sigh)" bit.

Rene.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists