John == John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John First of all, I doubt that you're going to have too much
John trouble getting a response from SElinux. They've been pretty
John good on responding to their mailinglist
I had sent in an informal request for clarification to the
mailing
On Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 05:36:26PM +0200, Russell Coker wrote:
I intend to package the kernel patch for NSA Security Enhanced Linux.
Below is all the details on licenses. My interpretation of the below license
details (copied from the web site) is that the kernel patch is under the GPL
On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote:
On Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 05:36:26PM +0200, Russell Coker wrote:
I intend to package the kernel patch for NSA Security Enhanced Linux.
Below is all the details on licenses. My interpretation of the below
license
details (copied from the
Russell Coker wrote:
I intend to package the kernel patch for NSA Security Enhanced Linux.
Below is all the details on licenses. My interpretation of the below license
details (copied from the web site) is that the kernel patch is under the GPL
and everything is fine.
However is the
First of all, I doubt that you're going to have too much trouble getting a
response from SElinux. They've been pretty good on responding to their
mailinglist: which, I might add, I see more than one Debian Developer has
contributed to, yet you have not. It would behoove you to actually look
as
On Tue, 25 Sep 2001 00:12, John Galt wrote:
First of all, I doubt that you're going to have too much trouble getting a
response from SElinux. They've been pretty good on responding to their
mailinglist: which, I might add, I see more than one Debian Developer has
contributed to, yet you have
I intend to package the kernel patch for NSA Security Enhanced Linux.
Below is all the details on licenses. My interpretation of the below license
details (copied from the web site) is that the kernel patch is under the GPL
and everything is fine.
However is the issue about warranty exclusion
7 matches
Mail list logo
