From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932221AbWF3MYh (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jun 2006 08:24:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932222AbWF3MYh (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jun 2006 08:24:37 -0400 Received: from outpipe-village-512-1.bc.nu ([81.2.110.250]:33703 "EHLO lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932221AbWF3MYg (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jun 2006 08:24:36 -0400 Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] let CONFIG_SECCOMP default to n From: Alan Cox To: Adrian Bunk Cc: Andrew Morton , Lee Revell , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, Alan Cox , Linus Torvalds , Andrea Arcangeli In-Reply-To: <20060630014050.GI19712@stusta.de> References: <20060629192121.GC19712@stusta.de> <1151628246.22380.58.camel@mindpipe> <20060629180706.64a58f95.akpm@osdl.org> <20060630014050.GI19712@stusta.de> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 13:39:19 +0100 Message-Id: <1151671159.31392.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.2 (2.6.2-1.fc5.5) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Ar Gwe, 2006-06-30 am 03:40 +0200, ysgrifennodd Adrian Bunk: > > I am stolidly letting the arch maintainers and the developer of this > > feature work out what to do. > > Andrea is proud of getting a patent for the server part [1], so I doubt > he would be happy with no longer having the client part defaulting to Y... If Andrea has clear personal business interests in that decision then perhaps you could make the case he shouldn't make the decision as to whether it should be Y or not, or that someone should review it. No big deal. There are lots of uses for that code. None of them appear interesting 8) I don't think its actually important because distributions make their own decisions about such questions and most of the running kernels are distribution ones. As to patented code for the kernel. That itself is a non-issue providing the patent owner or someone with permission from them submitted the code. The law recognizes that you cannot go around making promises (estoppel) and then trying to sue people for acting on them. The GPL likewise makes this clear. > It might sound a bit strange that although Alan Cox and Linus Torvalds > even wrote an open letter to the President of the European Parliament > calling "Software patents are also the utmost threat to the development > of Linux and other free software products" [2]... The Red Hat position on patents is on the web site, along with the permissions for GPL use. It makes clear the view we have on patents for software. Alan