linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [PATCH] Clarify source code distribution requirements

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20110208101840.52ae59f5@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date:	Tue, 8 Feb 2011 10:18:40 +0000
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [PATCH] Clarify source code distribution requirements

On Mon,  7 Feb 2011 18:09:04 -0500
Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com> wrote:

> Some vendors (such as http://users.livejournal.com/joshua_/43185.html)
> insist that since section 3(b) of GPLv2 does not contain an explicit
> timeframe for source distribution, they can ignore requests for source
> for up to 120 days. Clarify the introduction to the license to indicate
> that this isn't what's meant.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>

1. You've put it so it as if Linus said it
2. I'd like to see a lawyers take on it first (Linux Foundation perhaps)
before it goes in

Unless it's been past someone with legal knowledge you risk making the
problem worse not better even when doing apparently sane things.

You may also be weakening things if the legal view is that there being no
timescale means that the two should be going out together.
--
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/