From: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> To: linux-security-module@wirex.com Subject: GPL only usage of security.h Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 18:39:58 -0700 Hi all, With the addition of MODULE_LICENSE in 2.4.10, I got to thinking about the license of our security.h file. Personally I think closed source security products are bad things for a variety of reasons, and I think that most people on this project also agree with me. Toward that, I've added a few words to security.h keeping any closed source modules from using the security module interface to the kernel. I've attached the patch that I came up with below (and accidentally committed it to the tree, sorry, I didn't mean to do that without some discussion first, it can be backed out or changed.) The wording isn't the best, but I think it gets the idea across. Does anyone have any better wording they can think of for this? Or does anyone object to this change? thanks, greg k-h # This is a BitKeeper generated patch for the following project: # Project Name: Linux Security Module # This patch format is intended for GNU patch command version 2.5 or higher. # This patch includes the following deltas: # ChangeSet 1.213 -> 1.214 # include/linux/security.h 1.87 -> 1.88 # # The following is the BitKeeper ChangeSet Log # -------------------------------------------- # 01/09/23 greg@desk.kroah.org 1.214 # added wording describing the licensing terms of security.h # -------------------------------------------- # diff -Nru a/include/linux/security.h b/include/linux/security.h --- a/include/linux/security.h Sun Sep 23 18:46:20 2001 +++ b/include/linux/security.h Sun Sep 23 18:46:20 2001 @@ -10,6 +10,11 @@ * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or * (at your option) any later version. + * + * This file may not be included in any code not licensed under the list of + * accepted free software licenses as defined in module.h contained in this + * same directory. + * */ #ifndef __LINUX_SECURITY_H