On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 12:16:41PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Perhaps it would be possible to use the FOIA to get the terms of the
> contract?
Bwa ha ha ha, it has been the Bush administration's directive to all
Federal agencies since BEFORE September 11th of last year to flush all
FOIA requests
Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
>
> > John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > The US government definitely is allowed to own copyrights. The
> > > restriction
> > > is on _enforcing_ their copyrights on works of which they are
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The US government definitely is allowed to own copyrights. The restriction
> > is on _enforcing_ their copyrights on works of which they are author.
>
> There are two ways to be the owner of a copyr
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The US government definitely is allowed to own copyrights. The restriction
> is on _enforcing_ their copyrights on works of which they are author.
There are two ways to be the owner of a copyright. First, you can buy
it from someone else (or otherwise g
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002 19:16, John Hasler wrote:
> Russell Coker writes:
> > As the US government is prohibited from owning copyright they definately
> > can't get a copyright in their own jurisdiction,...
>
> The US government definitely is allowed to own copyrights. The restriction
> is on _enforci
Russell Coker writes:
> As the US government is prohibited from owning copyright they definately
> can't get a copyright in their own jurisdiction,...
The US government definitely is allowed to own copyrights. The restriction
is on _enforcing_ their copyrights on works of which they are author.
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002 17:38, John Hasler wrote:
> Shaya Potter writes:
> > At least when I worked at NRL, I thought it created this murky situation
> > of "public domain" for us citizens (or in US not sure which) but not for
> > anyone else.
>
> In the US works of the US government are "public domain
Shaya Potter writes:
> At least when I worked at NRL, I thought it created this murky situation
> of "public domain" for us citizens (or in US not sure which) but not for
> anyone else.
In the US works of the US government are "public domain" for everyone.
However, it might be able to obtain and e
On Thu, 2002-08-15 at 11:02, John Hasler wrote:
> Russell Coker writes:
> > If software can't be freely used for any purpose then it can't be
> > released under the GPL. The NSA assert that they have the right to
> > release under the GPL and that therefore the patent issues have been
> > dealt wi
Russell Coker writes:
> If software can't be freely used for any purpose then it can't be
> released under the GPL. The NSA assert that they have the right to
> release under the GPL and that therefore the patent issues have been
> dealt with.
Was the work done by NSA employees? If so it can be
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002 12:50, Sam Vilain wrote:
> > There are some limitations with it. The biggest limitation when
> > compared to my SE Linux work is it's lack of flexibility. I can
> > setup a SE Linux chroot, then do a bind mount of /home/www, and
> > grant read-only access to the files and dire
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > http://www.solucorp.qc.ca/miscprj/s_context.hc
> Is someone going to package this for Debian?
One person has announced that he is going to try on the list, though
they are not an official debian developer. I have made a package, too,
and will make it
On Wed, 14 Aug 2002 19:50, John Hasler wrote:
> Russell Coker writes:
> > They don't apply to SE Linux either, the NSA says that SE Linux is
> > licensed under the GPL only. If anyone wants to dispute that then they
> > have to sue the NSA...
>
> The licensing of the software is orthogonal to the
John Hasler wrote:
> Russell Coker writes:
> > They don't apply to SE Linux either, the NSA says that SE Linux is
> > licensed under the GPL only. If anyone wants to dispute that then they
> > have to sue the NSA...
>
> The licensing of the software is orthogonal to the licensing of the
> patent
Russell Coker writes:
> They don't apply to SE Linux either, the NSA says that SE Linux is
> licensed under the GPL only. If anyone wants to dispute that then they
> have to sue the NSA...
The licensing of the software is orthogonal to the licensing of the
patents.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTE
On Wed, 14 Aug 2002 15:47, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 11:50:14AM +0100, Sam Vilain wrote:
> > You might want to investiage `security contexts', a new kernel feature
> > that can be used for virtual IP roots as well as making processes in
> > one context (even root) not able to s
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 11:50:14AM +0100, Sam Vilain wrote:
> You might want to investiage `security contexts', a new kernel feature
> that can be used for virtual IP roots as well as making processes in
> one context (even root) not able to see other contexts' processes.
> The userland utilities a
On Wed, 14 Aug 2002 14:47, you wrote:
> btw, when I said "stole" i didnt mean it to be harsh. sorry if it came
> off that way.
No probs, I didn't take any offense. I'd be happy to work with you on
developing such things if your interests are similar to mine.
--
I do not get viruses because I
On Wed, 14 Aug 2002 12:50, Sam Vilain wrote:
> > argh. its so cool that you essentially stole my summer research. :(.
> > Does this allow you to create any amount of chroot jails? We are also
> > working on making "virtual IPs" that each jail would get. We are also
> > working on being able to mo
On Wed, 2002-08-14 at 06:50, Sam Vilain wrote:
> Shaya Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > I have written SE Linux policy for administration of a chroot
> > > > environment. That allows me to give full root administration
> > > > access (ability to create/delete users, kill processes runn
btw, when I said "stole" i didnt mean it to be harsh. sorry if it came
off that way.
shaya
On Wed, 2002-08-14 at 04:26, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2002 05:35, Shaya Potter wrote:
> > On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 22:09, Colin Walters wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 17:48, Russell Coker wro
Shaya Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I have written SE Linux policy for administration of a chroot
> > > environment. That allows me to give full root administration
> > > access (ability to create/delete users, kill processes running
> > > under different UIDs, ptrace, etc) to a chroot
On Wed, 14 Aug 2002 05:35, Shaya Potter wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 22:09, Colin Walters wrote:
> > On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 17:48, Russell Coker wrote:
> > > I have written SE Linux policy for administration of a chroot
> > > environment. That allows me to give full root administration access
> >
On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 22:09, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 17:48, Russell Coker wrote:
> > I have written SE Linux policy for administration of a chroot environment.
> > That allows me to give full root administration access (ability to
> > create/delete users, kill processes runn
On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 17:48, Russell Coker wrote:
> I have written SE Linux policy for administration of a chroot environment.
> That allows me to give full root administration access (ability to
> create/delete users, kill processes running under different UIDs, ptrace,
> etc) to a chroot envi
I have written SE Linux policy for administration of a chroot environment.
That allows me to give full root administration access (ability to
create/delete users, kill processes running under different UIDs, ptrace,
etc) to a chroot environment without giving any access to the rest of the
syst
26 matches
Mail list logo
