On Sun, 2018-12-02 at 19:10 -0800, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> James Bottomley wrote:
> > Finally, there's the question of what value does a file containing
> > WITH KernelEnforcementStatement-1.0 provide to downstream?
> >
> > I think the answer here is pretty much none in legal terms.
>
> At the b
James Bottomley wrote:
> Finally, there's the question of what value does a file containing WITH
> KernelEnforcementStatement-1.0 provide to downstream?
>
> I think the answer here is pretty much none in legal terms.
At the beginning here, it seems like you are saying the
LinuxEnforcementStatement
On Fri, 2018-11-30 at 21:03 -0800, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> Michael Dolan wrote:
> > It solely modifies an individual's contribution with additional
> > permissions.
>
> Indeed, that's precisely what every "additional permission" does
> (going back to the Bison Exception in the 1980s).
[...]
I t
Michael Dolan wrote:
> It solely modifies an individual's contribution with additional
> permissions.
Indeed, that's precisely what every "additional permission" does (going back
to the Bison Exception in the 1980s). So, you've basically stated there the
very definition of a "license exception".
