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
| ||
|
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