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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20110208141254.GA371@srcf.ucam.org>
Date:	Tue, 8 Feb 2011 14:12:54 +0000
From:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [PATCH] Clarify source code distribution requirements

On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 10:18:40AM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> 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

If he merged it, he effectively would be saying it...

> 2. I'd like to see a lawyers take on it first (Linux Foundation perhaps)
> before it goes in

And yes, I'd expect legal feedback to be a requirement.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
--
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/