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: 4, Informative) by aristarchus on Sunday February 16 2020, @07:55PM (5 children)
Except, it is not your right, and you cannot waive it for the entire Free Software community.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by barbara hudson on Sunday February 16 2020, @08:24PM (4 children)
I give you a program that's GPL. You give a copy to someone else. If they come to me asking for source, I am not under any obligation to give it to them. Only to you, and only if you ask for it. "The community " has no such rights, and can go fucké themselves. They have the right to ask the person who distributed it to them (you), but not me, because they never received a copy from me.
I am not responsible for fulfilling YOUR obligations under the GOL. The GOL makes zero mention of Community Rights, just the right of the individual recipient of a program to get a copy of the source from the entity they received the program from.-
That the community can't even understand the clear limits of the GPL and how, like all contracts, it cannot bind 3rd parties without their permission, kind of makes the "freetard " label appropriate,
The guy found a loophole in the license and law. And since in the case of Linux the license can't be changed, you're stuck with it. Too bad so sad. Not my circus, not my monkeys. FreeBSD licensing forever!
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 3, Informative) by lentilla on Sunday February 16 2020, @10:19PM (2 children)
Perhaps this might be an easier way to visualise...
It's not the binding of a third party that is the issue - it's the second party that is bound.
So; for example; Linus et al (the first party) provide Linux. The second party (Spengler) adds some goodies, and provides that to a third party (the "customer"). But in doing so, the second party automatically has their licence to redistribute the software revoked (per paragraphs 6 and 4 as mentioned above). This happens even if the third party would otherwise agree.
You mentioned above "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". Fair enough. Imagine Mr de Vinci lends an artwork to a gallery on the condition that it not be altered. The gallery; being somewhat strapped for cash; paints a moustache on the Mona Lisa and sells it to a collector to place in his den next to the picture of Dogs Playing Poker Wearing Tutus. Understandably, Mr de Vinci (the first party) is aggrieved that the second party (the gallery) has done this. The conditions that bind the second party don't get unwound - no matter how much a third party (the collector) might want an adulterated painting.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Sunday February 16 2020, @11:29PM (1 child)
As for the museum, they are on the hook.
This is not the same as someone distributing Linux and then refusing to supply sources for their changes. The easy way out is to say "okay, I'm not giving you the source so your software is now unlicensed - delete it." And then when they bitch, show them the standard warranty text that came with the distribution- no warranty whatsoever, which includes o warranty that it's licensed.
So delete the patches you received and we're both back in compliance.
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, @06:23AM
I hope this will be tested in court. Could you imagine the fallout if this was a proven successful defense?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 17 2020, @10:14PM
Read the GPL. The recipient of the program is not the only party with rights.