linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Documentation: Add a file explaining the requested Linux kernel license enforcement policy

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

Date:   Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:35:13 -0400
From:   Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:     Pavel Nikulin <nikulinpi@...il.com>
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Documentation: Add a file explaining the requested
 Linux kernel license enforcement policy

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 04:11:14PM +0300, Pavel Nikulin wrote:
> The people signing there effectively say: "we, to big extend, limit
> our options to call for expedient permanent license revocation" - the
> only thing that will ever tickle a commercial entity.

This makes no sense.  If a commercial entity is permanently in
violation, then the license stays revoked.  The whole *point* of
ethical copyright enforcement is that if the commercial entity comes
into compliance, that they can also have a way to have their ability
to use the GPL'ed code in question be also restored.

> When I first heard news of this and had a glancing look on the
> document, it looked to me almost as if it is a change to terms made on
> behalf of the "community," only after I read the document through few
> times over, I got an understanding of the semantics there.

So you're not a lawyer and have not consulted a lawyer, and yet you
feel comfortable making pronouncements about legal implications?  Just
trying to be clear...

					- Ted