On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 11:42:24 -0600, Hal Duston wrote:
>Does this mean that I have to _license_ my changes to the Linux kernel
>to all third parties?  Yes.  Does this mean that I have to _distribute_
>my modified sources to all third parties?  No.

Uh, this is not making sense. You mean to tell me that
I can give you a license but do not need to follow up
with actual code?

As I understand open source, it means that I need to distribute 
any modified source code to EVERYONE if I distribute even 
a single binary to anyone other than myself. (Myself can 
mean "my corporation" here, of course.) Sourceforge,
for example does not permit people to distribute binaries
alone, and they only host open source projects. Thus, if
you are saying that 
_all third parties are licensed_ 
AND
_only some third parties actually get source code_
you are not making sense, and I am in agreement with
Jonathan Hale, your position is clearly breaking the spirit 
of the open source agreement.

Please clarify. Yes, license does not equal distribute,
but open source means: license mandates source distribution
to all if anyone other than self uses binary.

Thus, I can build a window manager and installer for 
Linux which is entirely proprietary, and sell a "hardened
Linux distro" for lots of money... but Linux, and any 
modifications I make to it, must be open sourced at 
all times, because Linus already made that decision,
and it was _his_ code you extended.

The question for NITIX is: are you actually hardening
Linux, or is your "frontend" doing the hardening? If you
can prove the latter, then at least release the changes
you've made to Linux in order to accomodate your
frontend...

BTW, If you're going to harden *ix, why start with Linux,
why not freeBSD which is inherently more secure, and
gives you more liberty with the license? (dons flamesuit)

-Jared