SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
https://www.itwire.com/open-source/linux-kernel-patch-maker-says-court-case-was-only-way-out.html
The head of security firm Open Source Security, Brad Spengler, says he had little option but to file a lawsuit against open source advocate Bruce Perens, who alleged back in 2017 that security patches issued for the Linux kernel by OSS violated the licence under which the kernel is distributed.
The case ended last week with Perens coming out on the right side of things; after some back and forth, a court doubled down on its earlier decision that OSS must pay Perens' legal costs as awarded in June 2018.
The remainder of the article is an interview with Brad Spengler about the case and the issue.
iTWire contacted Spengler soon after the case ended, as he had promised to speak at length about the issue once all legal issues were done and dusted. Queries submitted by iTWire along with Spengler's answers in full are given below:
Previously:
Court Orders Payment of $259,900.50 to Bruce Perens' Attorneys
(Score: 3, Informative) by khallow on Sunday February 16 2020, @04:38PM (5 children)
Sounds like it's not GPL then. GPL doesn't impose restrictions on one's ability to redistribute the code. And what happens if I just don't tell OSS that I'm redistributing the code under their GPL? I bet they have a reporting requirement which would also be a violation of the GPL.
Do you really think a business applying a penalty to exercising GPL rights as you describe in your prior quote is equivalent to a business being required to forever support a customer?
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday February 17 2020, @04:14PM (4 children)
Isn't that exactly what they said? You *are* free to redistribute the code - but exercising that freedom terminates your contract with GRSecurity, so that they'll no longer provide you with any future updates.
Slimy, but arguably a legal way to circumvent the spirit of the GPL. After all, the GPL doesn't guarantee access to *future* updates, just the ability to redistribute the code you already have. If you want to continue doing business with GRSecurity, then you have to obey their non-license contract requirements.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 17 2020, @05:56PM (2 children)
The problem is that GRSecurity in turn modified Linux kernel code and thus, is subject to the license requirements of the kernel code. That happens to be GPL 2. Thus, GRSecurity's modifications of the code are in turn also required to be distributed under GPL 2.0 without that constraint above, or they lose permission to modify the kernel code for their products.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @08:39PM (1 child)
are you thick? no one is arguing that they are not required to release their code under the gpl. The argument is that they are not obligated to provide future updates or support if you violate their contract by redistributing. A "restriction" of the right to redistribute does not include me not giving you ponies for christmas until you die, ffs. An actual restriction would be me telling you you have to pay me $100 every time you redistribute, or you have to write a letter to every major newspaper/website explaining what a douche you are, every time you redistribute. Me saying "do what you want in regards to redistribution, but don't expect me to help you in the future" is not the same fucking thing, and evidently RMS has already acknowledged this.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 17 2020, @09:52PM
Which as has been repeatedly noted is a violation of the GPL 2.0 license for the Linux kernel.
Why in the world do you think that is relevant? Sure, you are right in that no one can force you to distribute code based on GPL 2.0 licensed code. But once you decide to distribute derivative code or programs (here, Linux kernel modifications), you have to follow the rules as outlined in the license.
Nope. The GRSecurity example is an actual restriction as well. Because if you don't follow the rules about not redistributing the code, you don't get the pony. That's a straightforward actual restriction on use.
Not all actual restrictions are the same fucking thing. There's an immense variety of ploys for restriction how you do things, that can range from the very explicit and straightforward to the very underhanded and covert. The GRSecurity example falls towards the former side. Now you know, right?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 18 2020, @05:40PM
If your "free" comes with a "but" you're probably not free to do it.
For the tried and true car analogy, I'm "free" to drive at 120 MPH on the freeway, but exercising that freedom may result in a speeding ticket. Still, I'm "free" to try, right?