SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/02/08/bruce_perens_grsecurity_anti_slapp/
http://perens.com/2018/02/08/bruce-perens-seeks-mandatory-award-of-legal-fees-for-his-defense-in-open-source-security-inc-and-bradley-spengler-v-bruce-perens/
Having defeated a defamation claim for speculating that using Grsecurity's Linux kernel hardening code may expose you to legal risk under the terms of the GPLv2 license, Bruce Perens is back in court.
This time, he's demanding Bradley Spengler – who runs Open Source Security Inc and develops Grsecurity – foots his hefty legal bills, after Spengler failed to successfully sue Perens for libel.
Perens, a noted figure in the open source community, and his legal team from O'Melveny & Myers LLP – as they previously told The Register – want to be awarded attorneys' fees under California's anti-SLAPP statute, a law designed to deter litigation that aims to suppress lawful speech.
That deterrence takes the form of presenting unsuccessful litigants with the bill for the cost of defending against meritless claims.
"Plaintiffs Open Source Security, Inc. and Bradley Spengler sued Defendant Bruce Perens to bully him from expressing his opinions that Plaintiffs' business practices violate Open Source licensing conditions and to discourage others from expressing the same opinions," Perens' latest filing, submitted to a US district court in San Francisco today, declared.
"Rather than allowing the public to judge Plaintiffs' contrary opinions through public debate, Plaintiffs tried to 'win' the argument on this unsettled legal issue by suing him."
[...]
Perens is asking for $667,665.25 in fees, which covers 833.9 hours expended on the litigation by numerous attorneys and a $188,687.75 success fee agreed upon to allow Perens to retain representation he might not otherwise have been able to afford.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by requerdanos on Saturday February 10 2018, @02:36PM (5 children)
This is perhaps the best explanation I've read so far about why the "Dude even though they are violating, they totally are not, man, they violate the license in the next paragraph so it doesn't count!" folks are not correct wrt the GPL. Such statements may be in "modern presidential" style, but license violations count as license violations.
Additional terms? You're in violation of the GPL.
GRSecurity's strategy? Additional terms (a specific penalty if you exercise specific rights under the GPL).
GRSecurity's PR? Yeah, there are additional terms, but after we penalized you, you still did something allowed under the GPL so we're totally not violating it and besides we'll sue you.
The problem for GRSecurity is that their clever violate-the-GPL-and-say-we-aren't scheme was revealed in a very public way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @03:58PM (2 children)
>The problem for GRSecurity is that their clever violate-the-GPL-and-say-we-aren't scheme was revealed in a very public way.
By who? Who was complaining about it so much that Perens had to chome in (yes, chome in, a stronger form of chime. like chime but with BASS)
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Saturday February 10 2018, @05:12PM (1 child)
You seem to be a dozen or so messages into this rant about your friend, why don't you just go marry him? Maybe you two at least get a room? Leave us out of it?
Sure, there are a couple here yapping that GRSecurity does no wrong because their violation is wearing attractive clothing, but by and large, this discussion is being held among a group of people who respect the GPL, and recognize its violations regardless of who's pointing them out.
If there were people who criticized your friend, and they were *wrong* on the *internet*, then I am sorry for the hurt feelings you've suffered, but we don't control that here. Get therapy or make a meme or something constructive.
Wanting to marry children, goats, space aliens, or rock outcroppings are not mainstream positions, acknowledged, but someone who holds such a position and also notices a GPL violation has in the end noticed a GPL violation, and the GPL violation is the noteworthy bit in the context of software (as opposed to "marriage flexibility") freedom. Among different surroundings, it might be different.
I guess what I am trying to say is "My! That's interesting. Run along, now."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 12 2018, @08:38AM
Before Bruce Perens published his article, everyone was saying MikeeUSA's analysis was wrong.
You might notice that Bruce Perens article has the same rhyme and meter, in places, as MikeeUSA's emails to Bruce Perens (which can be seen on the public debian mailing lists) on the issue from a week prior to the publication.
Only after Bruce Perens published the points MikeeUSA made did anyone* in the opensource community acknowledge it's correctness.
Most laughed at MikeeUSA claiming he was neither a programmer nor a lawyer, and then repeated their own argument about since the additional term is not penned into the very text of the GPL file all is kosher.
They also said that no one who likes cute young girls and accepts (Devarim chapter 22, verse 28, hebrew) child marriage of girls as fine, could ever have the mental capacity to be a programmer or attorney.
*Other than other lawyers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 12 2018, @08:48AM
It would be nice if a linux kernel rights holder would sue GRSecurity and Brad Spengler for the copyright violation.
Brad Spengler already attacked one of the old original FOSS luminaries (A set which includes: RMS, ESR, Bruce Perens, Prof. E. Moglen).
Is not turnabout fair play?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 12 2018, @08:50AM
"The problem for GRSecurity is that their clever violate-the-GPL-and-say-we-aren't scheme was revealed in a very public way."
Who campaigned for this to be revealed?