From: guido@trentalancia.com (Guido Trentalancia)
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 15:25:40 +0200
Subject: [refpolicy] state of core/contrib split
In-Reply-To: <5049EDBA.30502@trentalancia.com>
References: <5048D6E2.3030303@tresys.com> <5048DA26.3080703@trentalancia.com>
	<5049D3CE.7020806@trentalancia.com>
	<5049E761.7020002@tresys.com> <5049EDBA.30502@trentalancia.com>
Message-ID: <5049F5D4.2000409@trentalancia.com>
To: refpolicy@oss.tresys.com
List-Id: refpolicy.oss.tresys.com

On 07/09/2012 14:51, Guido Trentalancia wrote:
> On 07/09/2012 14:24, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
>> On 09/07/12 07:00, Guido Trentalancia wrote:
>>> On 06/09/2012 19:15, Guido Trentalancia wrote:
>>>> On 06/09/2012 19:01, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
>>>>> The core/contrib split in the refpolicy repo has been around for a year.  Unfortunately, I don't think it has gone as originally planned, as the people with commit access haven't really been committing anything.  Differences between refpolicy and distro policies are pretty severe in some cases.  What can we do to improve the situation?
>>>>
>>>> In my opinion, file contexts are probably impossible (or at least
>>>> extremely expensive) to tackle in a one-fits-all way for all possible
>>>> distributions and at the same time they are sort of silly blockers.
>>>
>>> In addition to the above, simple patches sometimes don't get through.
>>>
>>> Take for example, the cpucontrol module patch that I recently posted. It
>>> just ended up in nothing without sufficient follow-up.
>>
>> I'm not sure why you're saying this about cpucontrol.  From what I can see in my emails, I gave you feedback, and you said you would be making a new version, but I haven't seen any new patches.
>
> I can easily make a new version. But licensing issues on a wide range of
> deployed systems is something I prefer not to deal with.
>
> In my opinion, hardware vendors should not impose licensing restrictions
> that are much more restrictive than forbidding the use of their products
> for building or trafficking weapons or conducting illegal practices
> (which is of course is rather generic as in general it depends on local
> and sometimes also international jurisdiction).

And, of course, if it is not open-hardware as applicable to the case at 
hand, protecting their intellectual property.

But, it shouldn't be transitioning so easily as for a few mouse clicks 
from basically no-license to a situation which is so restrictive and 
still quite ambiguous to me such as "personal non-commercial".

> The rest of the licensing should probably happen in software. And this
> opens the door to another opportunity: as SELinux introduced TE
> (possibly a trademark), the policy should probably introduce a maximum
> software-licensing acceptable level (e.g. GPLv1, GPLv2, GPLv3 and so on).
>
> As far as I know, at the moment, on most or all distributions it is not
> possible for the user to impose a restriction such as: "I do not want to
> expose my machine to any other licence than GPLv3", for example, by
> easily configuring a simple centralized system-wide configuration file
> that cannot be modified by others.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Guido
> _______________________________________________
> refpolicy mailing list
> refpolicy at oss.tresys.com
> http://oss.tresys.com/mailman/listinfo/refpolicy
>