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: 1, Redundant) by barbara hudson on Sunday February 16 2020, @07:54PM (17 children)
For example, I might acquire a mint condition never unsealed collectors edition of a book from someone on the condition that I keep it in it's pristine unread state, because we're both serious collectors and that is the last known copy in such a state. Copyright law allows me to waive my right to read it. We can even spell out financial penalties if I should afterworlds choose to read the book, destroying its pristine condition, and those penalties would be enforceable; that copyright law allows me to read the book is no defence for breech of contract.
Copyright hasn't been waived - just my rights, voluntarily, by me.
Copyright doesn't require I take measures to preserve a work of art, I'm free to burn it if I wish. However, the seller can impose as a condition of lending or selling the work of art to a museum that thee museum takes steps to preserve it, and even restrictions on whether it can be shown to the public. There are plenty of such cases where the acquiring museum agrees to restrict viewing to scholars only, under restrictions, as part of the agreement to acquire the art, object, or artifacts.
And this applies to artifacts in the public domain as well. Think ancient scrolls as one example. The donor requires such restrictions, you either agree to them or you don't get the artifact. If the agreement says you can't photograph, copy, or otherwise reproduce them, even if they're old enough that copyright law says they're in the public domain, then you can't do any of those things.
Copyright is like other rights - you can waive your rights under copyright and no third party can contest it. The GPL can't stop two people from entering into a contract where one party waived some of their rights - no license has that power.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Sunday February 16 2020, @08:11PM (11 children)
Can't and doesn't try to.
It just sets the terms on which you may, if you choose, modify and distribute works based on it.
If you aren't willing to abide the terms, then your license is revoked.
You can enter all the contracts with end users you want, they can't give you any right to modify and distribute linux without the GPL.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Sunday February 16 2020, @10:25PM (10 children)
The judge will look at the contract and the license and rule that you waived your rights under the license. Pay damages. The judge will also rule that the gpl was not breeched because the vendor isn't the one who refused to distribute initially and only did so after the recipient waived their rights.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 16 2020, @10:46PM (9 children)
The GPL also states that you can either redistribute the program by giving the recipient the full rights of the GPL, or you have to refrain to redistribute at all. So it's the *distributor* that cannot enter a contract where the recipient waived their rights.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Monday February 17 2020, @12:22AM (8 children)
At that point, the recipient can either stfu or delete the software: the software was distributed with no warranty whatsoever, same as other open source programs.
And the distributor can argue away the whole thing as being de minimus, and as such non-justiciable. After all, where's the hardship on the original author? D ir any copyrights holders? Are they able to prove any financial losses? Harm to reputation? Nope. It was of so little financial value as is that people were able to sell fixes. It could be argued that availability of such fixes enhanced the value of the original. Weakening the GPL would probably result in more innovation. Certainly it hasn't improved with age.
After all, it's companies and products that have been able to construct walled gardens around Linux that are successful. Compare the various open source not-quite-phones with Android. Linux on laptops with Chromebooks. Linux on the desktop with FreeBSD and Quartz from Apple.
BTW, just checked and there's no LICENSE.txt or even a README.txt for Linux on my distro. A newb would assume that ift was free as in FreeBSD.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @01:53AM (5 children)
It is a kernel patch. The product IS the source.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Monday February 17 2020, @02:09AM (4 children)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @03:03AM (3 children)
To do binary patches, everyone has to have the same binaries. The second I add in or cut out a different module, change my defaults, add my own source patches, use different compile options, etc. that binary changes.
And there is also the fact that if you actually looked at their downloads page or docs, you'd quickly realize that they are literally distributing GNU patch formatted files to be run against the extracted source tarball obtained from upstream.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Monday February 17 2020, @03:58AM (2 children)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 18 2020, @03:20PM (1 child)
Patching the binaries is a derivative work too, you fucking moron.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 18 2020, @08:20PM
Not only that, but do you really think anyone who is so paranoid that they think the default Linux kernel is not secure enough is going to run a fuzzy or conditional patcher on their kernel? This goes double when you realize all the minor changes that different compilers, flags, and CONFIGs can make in the final compiled product. Yep, lets run this untested, unauditable binary patch on our production system that requires a higher security level than the default or distro kernels.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 17 2020, @06:02AM
You're aware that a contract signed under duress and/or coercion is null and void?
Spengler's sales pitch is much like this: "I have something valuable, which you can't live without. I'll allow you to use it, if and only if, you waive your rights under the GPL." It's bullshit, plain and simple. You also have rights, Hudson. You have the right to stop defending some greedy-ass fuckwit who doesn't understand the GPL.
(Score: 2) by mobydisk on Tuesday February 18 2020, @09:20PM
I don't think so. The GPL is invoked at the time of distribution, not at the time the recipient asks for the source. So as soon as the GRSecurity tells the recipient "I won't give you this unless you agree to not distribute it" then GRSecurity is no longer in compliance. This happens even before the recipient gets the software. At that point GRSecurity no longer has the right to distribute the patches.
Breaking down the GPL as-written:
So Linus Torvalds grants me the right to redistribute the GRSecurity patches, not GRSecurity. And this happens at the time GRSecurity distributes their patches.
So GRSecurity is violating the GPL by merely asking their clients to sign a waiver of rights. It's not that the recipient can't agree to do so - it's that GRSecurity is not allowed to ask.
(Score: 2) by gtomorrow on Sunday February 16 2020, @08:44PM (3 children)
As Arik said repeatedly, it's you that doesn't understand. In this case, you aren't waiving your rights. You are perfectly free not to enforce your rights but you are never at any moment irrevocably surrendering anything. In this case you may and can change your mind at any time regarding said rights. Specifically, under GPL, you can at any time request the source code and no one can legally tell you to, as you so eloquently put it, "pound sand".
Geez...sometimes, Barbara, you are exhausting.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 16 2020, @09:48PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @05:50AM (1 child)
And nothing can stop that company from doing its duty under the GPL and giving you that - and then terminating your relationship for future releases.
Which is what's happening here.
Which is why it's legal.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @12:12PM
It is not legal.
GRSecurity is forbidden from offering any additionally restrictive terms between it and the distributees of the derivative work.
See section 6 and section 4 of the GPL (version 2).
The copyright owners of the linux kernel (and of GCC, GRSecurity also makes GCC plugins, which are believed to be non-seperable derivative works aswell) have explicitly forbidden any additional restrictive terms between the licensee and the down-the-line distributee.
It IS illegal. Criminally too since Spengler et al have made over 1000 dollars from the direct copyright infringement.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 17 2020, @06:31PM
No, you're not. You can't waive any and all rights granted by copyright law because you can't waive the owners' rights for all the copyright you don't own. Neither GRSecurity or its customers (and certainly not you) have the authority to waive the license requirements because they don't own the copyright on the Linux kernel and thus, don't have the authority to issue themselves an exception to the license.