[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200811193016.bdwh5kq7ci3yeme4@duo.ucw.cz>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 21:30:16 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
Cc: Chuck Lever <chucklever@...il.com>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Deven Bowers <deven.desai@...ux.microsoft.com>,
Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, snitzer@...hat.com,
dm-devel@...hat.com, tyhicks@...ux.microsoft.com, agk@...hat.com,
Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, nramas@...ux.microsoft.com,
serge@...lyn.com, pasha.tatashin@...een.com,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, mdsakib@...rosoft.com,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, eparis@...hat.com,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-audit@...hat.com,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
jaskarankhurana@...ux.microsoft.com
Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM
(IPE)
Hi!
> > > > (eg, a specification) will be critical for remote filesystems.
> > > >
> > > > If any of this is to be supported by a remote filesystem, then we
> > > > need an unencumbered description of the new metadata format
> > > > rather than code. GPL-encumbered formats cannot be contributed to
> > > > the NFS standard, and are probably difficult for other
> > > > filesystems that are not Linux-native, like SMB, as well.
> > >
> > > I don't understand what you mean by GPL encumbered formats. The
> > > GPL is a code licence not a data or document licence.
> >
> > IETF contributions occur under a BSD-style license incompatible
> > with the GPL.
> >
> > https://trustee.ietf.org/trust-legal-provisions.html
> >
> > Non-Linux implementers (of OEM storage devices) rely on such
> > standards processes to indemnify them against licensing claims.
>
> Well, that simply means we won't be contributing the Linux
> implementation, right? However, IETF doesn't require BSD for all
> implementations, so that's OK.
>
> > Today, there is no specification for existing IMA metadata formats,
> > there is only code. My lawyer tells me that because the code that
> > implements these formats is under GPL, the formats themselves cannot
> > be contributed to, say, the IETF without express permission from the
> > authors of that code. There are a lot of authors of the Linux IMA
> > code, so this is proving to be an impediment to contribution. That
> > blocks the ability to provide a fully-specified NFS protocol
> > extension to support IMA metadata formats.
>
> Well, let me put the counterpoint: I can write a book about how
> linux
You should probably talk to your lawyer.
> device drivers work (which includes describing the data formats), for
> instance, without having to get permission from all the authors ... or
> is your lawyer taking the view we should be suing Jonathan Corbet,
> Alessandro Rubini, and Greg Kroah-Hartman for licence infringement? In
> fact do they think we now have a huge class action possibility against
> O'Reilly and a host of other publishers ...
Because yes, you can reverse engineer for compatibility reasons --
doing clean room re-implementation (BIOS binary -> BIOS documentation
-> BIOS sources under different license), but that was only tested in
the US, is expensive, and I understand people might be uncomfortable
doing that.
Best regards,
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (196 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists