Sorry, read this one: Re: SELinux Dumb Questions

Sorry, read this one: Re: SELinux Dumb Questions

[JW]

Sorry about that last empty message, I accidently hit ^[ENTER] when I meant 
hit shift...
-------------------

Something is really amiss with this and needs to be brought to a reasonable 
conclusion soon. Read on for details...

On Monday, 03 June Admissions Office wrote:
> > Folks this may seem like a dumb question given the Open Source and
> > postings on the site. Its just that we want to be sure....
> >
> > Is there any reason why a Colo company cannot offer SELinux as a standard
> > product offering they would install on clients servers?

And on Monday 03 June Russell Coker replied:
> As Mark stated there are no license or legal issues preventing such use.

BUT;
On Monday 03 June Tom Haigh wrote:

> SELinux includes Type Enforcement technology developed and patented by the
> Secure Computing Corporation, who still holds rights to all commercial use
> of the technology.  Before a colo company, or anyone else uses the
> technology commercially, it will be necessary to negotiate a license with
> Secure Computing.  If anyone wants to do so, I can help get the ball
> rolling with our Legal and BD folks.
>
> --Tom
>
> Dr. Tom Haigh, CTO
> Secure Computing Corp.
> 2675 Long Lake Road
> Roseville, MN 55113
>
> 651-628-2738 (V)
> 651-628-2701 (F)
>
> haigh@securecomputing.com


There is some severe misunderstanding here. 

IANAL, but it is my understanding that you cannot restrict the use or 
distribution of GPLd Free Software. It simply does not work that way, no 
exceptions, no excuses. Once code is GPLd it is free for all to use. You can 
change the license on future versions of the code, but you cannot go back and 
restrict GPL's code "after the fact"

Either:

 1. Someone (at the NSA?) affixed the GPL to code they didn't have a right to 
do so on, or

2. (More likely) Secure Computing did not understand under what terms they 
were developing Type Enforcment for the NSA under.

I've got the flu right now so I'm too tried to reason it all through, but 
_someone_ needs to very soon.

Just a few implications that come to the top of my head if Secure COmputing 
is right:

1. SELinux patches cannot legally be applied to GPLd software or the Linux 
kernel, because that would break the GPL itself (GPL forbids making non-free 
changes to GPL'd code -- i.e., if you modify GPL'd code, the modifications 
must be made available under the terms of the GPL).

2. It will need to be removed from Debian's tree -- at least moved to 
non-free, yet as I said before, if Secure Computing is correct, SE-Linux is 
not legal to use with GPL'd software anyway (at least the way I see it).

You'd better bet that GNU and other people who's code is being modified to 
work with SE-Linux will have ten purple cows on anyone who mixes non-free 
code with their GPLd code.

Perhaps I'm totally misunderstanding something while I'm half-delirious with 
the flu, but this needs to be clarified _soon_.

	JW

--
You have received this message because you are subscribed to the selinux list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.

Re: Sorry, read this one: Re: SELinux Dumb Questions

[Admissions Office]

Ok, Tom & I are going to be speaking soon.  So we will talk, thats just
great business. And we will all see how this plays out.....





> Sorry about that last empty message, I accidently hit ^[ENTER] when I
meant
> hit shift...
> -------------------
>
> Something is really amiss with this and needs to be brought to a
reasonable
> conclusion soon. Read on for details...
>
> On Monday, 03 June Admissions Office wrote:
> > > Folks this may seem like a dumb question given the Open Source and
> > > postings on the site. Its just that we want to be sure....
> > >
> > > Is there any reason why a Colo company cannot offer SELinux as a
standard
> > > product offering they would install on clients servers?
>
> And on Monday 03 June Russell Coker replied:
> > As Mark stated there are no license or legal issues preventing such use.
>
> BUT;
> On Monday 03 June Tom Haigh wrote:
>
> > SELinux includes Type Enforcement technology developed and patented by
the
> > Secure Computing Corporation, who still holds rights to all commercial
use
> > of the technology.  Before a colo company, or anyone else uses the
> > technology commercially, it will be necessary to negotiate a license
with
> > Secure Computing.  If anyone wants to do so, I can help get the ball
> > rolling with our Legal and BD folks.
> >
> > --Tom
> >
> > Dr. Tom Haigh, CTO
> > Secure Computing Corp.
> > 2675 Long Lake Road
> > Roseville, MN 55113
> >
> > 651-628-2738 (V)
> > 651-628-2701 (F)
> >
> > haigh@securecomputing.com
>
>
> There is some severe misunderstanding here.
>
> IANAL, but it is my understanding that you cannot restrict the use or
> distribution of GPLd Free Software. It simply does not work that way, no
> exceptions, no excuses. Once code is GPLd it is free for all to use. You
can
> change the license on future versions of the code, but you cannot go back
and
> restrict GPL's code "after the fact"
>
> Either:
>
>  1. Someone (at the NSA?) affixed the GPL to code they didn't have a right
to
> do so on, or
>
> 2. (More likely) Secure Computing did not understand under what terms they
> were developing Type Enforcment for the NSA under.
>
> I've got the flu right now so I'm too tried to reason it all through, but
> _someone_ needs to very soon.
>
> Just a few implications that come to the top of my head if Secure
COmputing
> is right:
>
> 1. SELinux patches cannot legally be applied to GPLd software or the Linux
> kernel, because that would break the GPL itself (GPL forbids making
non-free
> changes to GPL'd code -- i.e., if you modify GPL'd code, the modifications
> must be made available under the terms of the GPL).
>
> 2. It will need to be removed from Debian's tree -- at least moved to
> non-free, yet as I said before, if Secure Computing is correct, SE-Linux
is
> not legal to use with GPL'd software anyway (at least the way I see it).
>
> You'd better bet that GNU and other people who's code is being modified to
> work with SE-Linux will have ten purple cows on anyone who mixes non-free
> code with their GPLd code.
>
> Perhaps I'm totally misunderstanding something while I'm half-delirious
with
> the flu, but this needs to be clarified _soon_.
>
> JW
>


--
You have received this message because you are subscribed to the selinux list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.

Re: Sorry, read this one: Re: SELinux Dumb Questions

[John Summerfield]

admissions@internet.edu.nf said:
> Ok, Tom & I are going to be speaking soon.  So we will talk, thats
> just great business. And we will all see how this plays out.....


It's not that simple, and here is a reason why.

You and I can take any GPL software and supply it to anyone at all for them to 
use as they wish. For commercial or non-commercial purposes, no different.

The GPL licence means there are no licence fees to pay. You and I are entitled 
to charge for the process of supplying it, and we can bundle support services if 
we wish.

The restrictions that apply are these:
We must provide source code if asked, on terms not too different from those 
applying to the binaries.

If we make source-code changes and publish the resultant binaries then we must 
also publish the source changes.

You and I are entitled to rely on that, and there is no need to ask for 
permission.

I don't know about you, but if I had done so (and it is in my mind that I should 
offer some form of hardening), I'd be cheesed off if someone came along later 
and said I and my customers hat to pay licence fees.

Very cheesed off indeed.


Imagine the fracas if Red Hat had shipped this in Red Hat Linux 7.3. If the code 
is GPL then it was entitled to.


It's a bad scene for us all.



-- 
Cheers
John Summerfield

Microsoft's most solid OS: http://www.geocities.com/rcwoolley/

Note: mail delivered to me is deemed to be intended for me, for my disposition.

==============================
If you don't like being told you're wrong,
	be right!




--
You have received this message because you are subscribed to the selinux list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.

re:Open Question to the NSA & The List

[Admissions Office]

There has been alot of talk over the mention that a Colo company (ours)
would like to install the SELinux on clients servers. My question to the
Powers In Charge here is: Can we use this software at no charge? People ask
for it daily, we have users that installed themselves. Its just we are being
asked to do it as part of a total service to clients.  If someone from the
NSA, as well as the other interested parties on this list could answer this
it would be great. And yes, I understand that the NSA does not reply on many
things. I do not see how a simple answer would hurt as its on a U.S.
Government server that is property of the NSA.

Thank You.

Pamela Patterson


--
You have received this message because you are subscribed to the selinux list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.

Re: Open Question to the NSA & The List

[Dale Amon]

On Wed, Jun 05, 2002 at 10:56:34AM -0600, Admissions Office wrote:
> There has been alot of talk over the mention that a Colo company (ours)
> would like to install the SELinux on clients servers. My question to the
> Powers In Charge here is: Can we use this software at no charge? People ask
> for it daily, we have users that installed themselves. Its just we are being
> asked to do it as part of a total service to clients.  If someone from the
> NSA, as well as the other interested parties on this list could answer this
> it would be great. And yes, I understand that the NSA does not reply on many
> things. I do not see how a simple answer would hurt as its on a U.S.
> Government server that is property of the NSA.
> 
> Thank You.
> 
> Pamela Patterson

I think the answer is the parties who really are involved are
probably talking right now and when it is all ironed out, 
they will report to this list.

I personally expect it will be sorted out and that everything
will indeed be GPL. But that is for those who are *actually*
in the responsible positions to sort.

I'm sure we'll hear something soon.


--
You have received this message because you are subscribed to the selinux list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.

Re: Open Question to the NSA & The List

[Admissions Office]

 We agree as well.....



> I think the answer is the parties who really are involved are
> probably talking right now and when it is all ironed out, 
> they will report to this list.
> 
> I personally expect it will be sorted out and that everything
> will indeed be GPL. But that is for those who are *actually*
> in the responsible positions to sort.
> 
> I'm sure we'll hear something soon.
> 

--
You have received this message because you are subscribed to the selinux list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.

Re: Open Question to the NSA & The List

[John Summerfield]

> There has been alot of talk over the mention that a Colo company (ours)
> would like to install the SELinux on clients servers. My question to the
> Powers In Charge here is: Can we use this software at no charge? People ask
> for it daily, we have users that installed themselves. Its just we are being
> asked to do it as part of a total service to clients.  If someone from the
> NSA, as well as the other interested parties on this list could answer this
> it would be great. And yes, I understand that the NSA does not reply on many
> things. I do not see how a simple answer would hurt as its on a U.S.
> Government server that is property of the NSA.


I would not do so at present, and I would explain that there is a patent issue 
inder discussion right now.

It seems clear to me that if that is not resolved to the satisfaction of some of 
the authors here then they will withdraw their code.



-- 
Cheers
John Summerfield

Microsoft's most solid OS: http://www.geocities.com/rcwoolley/

Note: mail delivered to me is deemed to be intended for me, for my disposition.

==============================
If you don't like being told you're wrong,
	be right!




--
You have received this message because you are subscribed to the selinux list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.

Re: Sorry, read this one: Re: SELinux Dumb Questions

[Russell Coker]

On Tue, 4 Jun 2002 23:49, JW wrote:
> Sorry about that last empty message, I accidently hit ^[ENTER] when I meant
> hit shift...

You had written enough to clarify the issue (I don't know how I missed Tom's 
message the first time).

> IANAL, but it is my understanding that you cannot restrict the use or
> distribution of GPLd Free Software. It simply does not work that way, no
> exceptions, no excuses. Once code is GPLd it is free for all to use. You
> can change the license on future versions of the code, but you cannot go
> back and restrict GPL's code "after the fact"

Yes.  Unless of course they claim that they didn't GPL it, or that the GPL 
only covers the code not the patent.

> 2. It will need to be removed from Debian's tree -- at least moved to
> non-free, yet as I said before, if Secure Computing is correct, SE-Linux is
> not legal to use with GPL'd software anyway (at least the way I see it).

Stuff that.  I'm not putting this much work into non-free stuff!  If the 
license gets changed to anything other than the GPL then I'll immediately 
cease work and file critical bug reports against ftp.debian.org asking for 
the packages to be removed.  If Secure Computing want me to work on material 
that's patented by them then they'll have to pay me at my usual consulting 
rates, plus back-pay for the last 6 months.

> You'd better bet that GNU and other people who's code is being modified to
> work with SE-Linux will have ten purple cows on anyone who mixes non-free
> code with their GPLd code.

The code can be still released as patches, but the problems of having them 
becoming obsolete and not matching the version your OS uses will remain.

Basically I think that SE Linux is as good as dead for anything other than 
research use if this patent gets enforced.

-- 
I do not get viruses because I do not use MS software.
If you use Outlook then please do not put my email address in your
address-book so that WHEN you get a virus it won't use my address in the
>From field.

--
You have received this message because you are subscribed to the selinux list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.

Re: Sorry, read this one: Re: SELinux Dumb Questions

[Tom]

On Wed, Jun 05, 2002 at 12:12:24AM +0200, Russell Coker wrote:
> Yes.  Unless of course they claim that they didn't GPL it, or that the GPL 
> only covers the code not the patent.

The GPL has a couple of things to say about patents on GPL software,
the main point being:

"[...] If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your 
obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then 
as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, 
if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the 
Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through 
you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would 
be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program."


In short: If this patent is intended to be enforced, even selectively
(*especially* selectively), then distribution of SELinux just died.


I, too, have had plans to use SELinux commercially, but I'd rather
write cobol software on VMS than support software patents.


-- 
New GPG Key issued (old key expired):
http://web.lemuria.org/pubkey.html
pub  1024D/2D7A04F5 2002-05-16 Tom Vogt <tom@lemuria.org>
     Key fingerprint = C731 64D1 4BCF 4C20 48A4  29B2 BF01 9FA1 2D7A 04F5

--
You have received this message because you are subscribed to the selinux list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.