From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [AppArmor 00/44] AppArmor security module overview Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:34:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20070627.173416.10133360.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20070627.160535.71552808.davem@davemloft.net> <350078.43404.qm@web36601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: crispin@novell.com, seanlkml@sympatico.ca, bunk@stusta.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, jjohansen@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: casey@schaufler-ca.com Return-path: In-Reply-To: <350078.43404.qm@web36601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Sender: linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org From: Casey Schaufler Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:27:17 -0700 (PDT) > --- David Miller wrote: > > > Neither of those are reasons why something should go into the tree. > > They reflect the corporate reality of the open source community. > If you're going to go down the "open source isn't for money" > rathole please take it elsewhere. I've heard the arguments so many > times I can sing them to the tune of "Lady Madonna". That's a wonderful technical reason for apparmour to go into the tree. Thanks for sharing and making it even clearer what is really behind this submission.