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
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- Linux-audit mailing list Linux-audit@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit
