Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Saturday February 10 2018, @01:08AM   Printer-friendly
from the slapp-me-again,-I-like-it dept.

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.


Original Submission

Related Stories

Court Orders Payment of $259,900.50 to Bruce Perens' Attorneys 10 comments

Bruce Perens has a blog post on his site stating that the court has ordered Open Source Security, Inc. and Bradley Spengler to pay $259,900.50 to his attorneys. At issue was Bruce getting sued for pointing out that Grsecurity and their customers are involved in contributory infringement and breach of contract by deploying their product in conjunction with the Linux kernel under the no-redistribution policy employed by Grsecurity.

The court has ordered Open Source Security, Inc, and Bradley Spengler to pay $259,900.50 in legal fees to my attorneys, O’Melveny and Meyers. The court awarded about half what we asked for, courts usually do reduce awards. There is no new comment at this time, but please see my comment upon asking for the award of legal fees.

Here are all of the case documents.

Earlier on SN:
Bruce Perens Wants to Anti-SLAPP GRSecurity's Brad Spengler With $670,000 in Legal Bills (2018)
Grsecurity's Defamation Suit Against Bruce Perens Dismissed (2017)
Bruce Perens Warns of Potential Contributory Infringement Risk for Grsecurity Customers (2017)


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @01:19AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @01:19AM (#635825)

    Oh yeah Bruce is so hot I want him to slap me in the face with his long dick.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @08:24AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @08:24AM (#635935)

      Bruce attended a free software event that I was tangentially involved with. The prime organizer reported the Bruce's first question was, "What can you do for me?". Now we know, we can sue his ass.

  • (Score: 2) by mrpg on Saturday February 10 2018, @01:24AM (5 children)

    by mrpg (5708) Subscriber Badge <{mrpg} {at} {soylentnews.org}> on Saturday February 10 2018, @01:24AM (#635827)

    $667,665.25 in fees, which covers 833.9 hours

    $800 per hour?

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday February 10 2018, @01:49AM (2 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 10 2018, @01:49AM (#635836) Journal

      They probably worked at a discount rate, for that money.

      --
      Keep all chemicals out of the reach of meth heads.
      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @02:04AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @02:04AM (#635840)

        The highest paid attorney I know in town is paid $2,500 an hour for certain specialized things that he doesn't actually like doing. Of course, most things aren't at that rate and most clients get a "discount" anyway. Last time I asked him about it, he said he only got 3 hours billed at that rate the entire year; most things were between $1,250 and $1,500. And even that stuff is so high because it has to cover all the overhead, including renting three floors of prime real estate in the city center. Plus, lots of hours are "billed" with no actual expectation of collecting them for various reasons. Suffice it to say that if Perens loses, he would not be on the hook for that amount.

        Plus, seems like a bit of a stretch for Spengler to say that, I'm about 80% sure his council is working on contingency and 99% sure at least partial contingency. At the standard contingency rate of 1/3rd, Spengler is asking for around $1,000,000 in fees himself.

        • (Score: -1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday February 10 2018, @08:01AM

          by Ethanol-fueled (2792) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 10 2018, @08:01AM (#635931) Homepage

          I learned all about this from living in Los Angeles and battling Google in a court of law --

          Jewish Lawyers.

    • (Score: 2) by Snotnose on Saturday February 10 2018, @03:51AM

      by Snotnose (1623) on Saturday February 10 2018, @03:51AM (#635859)

      Never had to hire a lawyer in the good ol U S of A, have you? Minor stuff starts at $300/hr, get to looking at prison and the sky's the limit.

      --
      The journey of a thousand miles may begin with the first step being in a pile of doggie doo.
    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday February 10 2018, @08:14PM

      by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 10 2018, @08:14PM (#636114) Journal

      Courts are notoriously reluctant to give the asking price.

      In fact judges have to be dragged kicking and screaming to awarding fees.

      a) because they see it as double dipping, b) it hurts their business (their business is trials), and c) fees make it dangerous and stupid expensive for the little guy to go up against the big guy and lose, (which most of them do).

      Had Perens won any money at trial, you could bet there would be no fees.

      But since he was merely defending, he might get some fees.

      But judges know that attorneys pad the living snot out of their bills, and are still reluctant to award the whole amount. In the end, there's nothing mandatory about this award.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by requerdanos on Saturday February 10 2018, @01:39AM (27 children)

    by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 10 2018, @01:39AM (#635831) Journal

    "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,"

    I hereby observe that the GRSecurity folks claim to be GPL (they have to, in order to profit from the GPL software that is their actual product, the Linux kernel), but impose additional restrictions on those who receive their code. Under the GPL, additional restrictions are forbidden. Thus, they are in arguably deliberate violation of the terms of the license as as such, their rights under the license are self-terminated.

    I know license-blah-blah is almost as bad as reading terms until you spot the "I Agree Now Shut Up And Go Away" button, but this is a pretty popular, well-established license they're violating. Perens was well-familiar with said license before GRSecurity was ever a thing.

    The timeline was basically as follows:

    • The Linux kernel was perceived to suck at security
    • Linus said "Bah, security, not important" or words to that effect.
    • Zounds! said GRSecurity. Product: A GRSecurity hardened kernel, provided as a patch to the original kernel!
    • Which is GPL, so that's not only legal, but a cool and healthy and happy thing!
    • And don't forget, the patch is useless by itself except perhaps for study or personal scholarship!
    • And if you like it, pay the GRSecurity folks to subscribe to it! Best way to stay up to date.
    • But since it's GPL it's not just free as in libre, it's also free as in beer.
    • So you can effectively subscribe or not, according to whether you want to support GRSecurity or not.
    • Zounds! again! said GRSecurity, most people are not paying us!
    • I mean, that is how every other free software has gone since beginning of time...
    • But we are special and ours should be different!
    • So we are taking our ball and going home, and only friends who pay us can come play with us.
    • Except guess what? It's not your ball; the GPL says rights to use and distribute it belong to me and Bruce Perens and everyone else.
    • Want to dictate license terms? Go write your own kernel.
    • Note, not "Sue people who notice the violations you are trying to get away with." That's evil.
    • Also, in future, look up words to see what they mean before making them your company name.

    An item or two may be out of place, but whatever. This is essentially the easy-to-understand TLDR of GRSecurity's confusion that they are trying to sue their way out of.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @01:52AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @01:52AM (#635837)

      thank you for making this TLDR version.

      Pay up d-bags of "security" before you lose the name

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday February 10 2018, @01:57AM (2 children)

      by c0lo (156) on Saturday February 10 2018, @01:57AM (#635838)

      Note, not "Sue people who notice the violations you are trying to get away with." That's evil.

      But that's a blatant infringement to the constitutional right to sue!!! I'm sure there's an amendment somewhere.

      I... I'll... I'll sue ya! [youtube.com]

      (grin)

      • (Score: 2) by requerdanos on Saturday February 10 2018, @02:48AM (1 child)

        by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 10 2018, @02:48AM (#635844) Journal

        constitutional right to sue!!!

        I'll see your right-to-sue and raise you one anti-SLAPP [anti-slapp.org].

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday February 10 2018, @03:36AM

          by c0lo (156) on Saturday February 10 2018, @03:36AM (#635854)

          +0 Not funny

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @06:37AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @06:37AM (#635898)

      You left out a nice comment by Linus on the GR folk

      The thing is a joke, and they are clowns. When they started talking about people taking advantage of them, I stopped trying to be polite about their bullshit. Their patches are pure garbage.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @07:14AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @07:14AM (#635914)

        The patches are not pure garbage. Linus is not an expert on security.
        (With the CPU backdoors, however, such security may be functionally irrelevant in the real world)

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @06:09PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @06:09PM (#636079)

          Note his words, the PATCHES are garbage, not the actual changes. When Spengler tried to mainline some of the changes to the kernel, he submitted them as a single gigantic diff of around a million changes. Which, at best was really an effort to reduce the amount of work he has to do (since it wasn't a fully up-to-date patch), or at worst, knowing they would be rejected. And, why wouldn't or shouldn't something like that get rejected? He knows the rules and has to follow them like everyone else.

    • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @07:09AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @07:09AM (#635913)

      Timeline is this:

      GRSec closes patches.
      MikeeUSA is unhappy about this.
      Informs Spengler that he is going to sue GRSec one way or another.
      MikeeUSA Complains on the chans, the linux mailing list, the debian mailing list, ubuntu mailing list, redhat mailing list, writes articles for websites such as this, explains how GRSec is violating the license, explains the law, etc.
      Everyone says MikeeUSA is nuts, not a lawyer, not a programmer either, etc.
      MikeeUSA contacts keyholders in the free/opensource community. RMS, Perens, etc.
      Discussion ensues (forwarded to linux and debian mailinglists).
      Perens publishes an article that mirrors MikeeUSA's legal opinion (with the exception of the contributory copyright addendum).
      Brad Spengler sues Perens.
      and here we are .

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by TheRaven on Saturday February 10 2018, @12:40PM (16 children)

      by TheRaven (270) on Saturday February 10 2018, @12:40PM (#635980) Journal

      But since it's GPL it's not just free as in libre, it's also free as in beer.

      This doesn't follow. GPL'd code can be as expensive as you like, but once you have a copy you are legally allowed to distribute the copies (and to charge as much or as little as you like for them). The problem for GrSecurity was that they couldn't stop their customers from doing exactly this: taking the patches that they'd paid GrSecurity for and giving them away for free to everyone else.

      Their attempt to dodge this was by saying that their customers were paying for a subscription service which provided them with patches. They were at liberty to distribute the patches if they wanted to, but doing so would terminate their subscription. This meant that they weren't technically violating the GPL - people didn't give up any of the rights that the GPL gave them. If they exercised them then they would retain the rights to all of the GrSecurity patches that they'd received already, they just wouldn't get any more.

      The problem for GrSecurity was that most people didn't think that this was a good deal and most of the ones that wanted their patches were happy with older versions that other people had forward ported, so didn't pay them anything. They had a business model that didn't make sense and couldn't make it work.

      --
      sudo mod me up
      • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @01:19PM (15 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @01:19PM (#635993)

        >""" Their attempt to dodge this was by saying that their customers were paying for a subscription service which provided them with patches.
        >They were at liberty to distribute the patches if they wanted to, but doing so would terminate their subscription. This meant that they weren't
        >technically violating the GPL - people didn't give up any of the rights that the GPL gave them. If they exercised them then they would retain the
        >rights to all of the GrSecurity patches that they'd received already, they just wouldn't get any more. """

        Incorrect. The GPLv2 forbids the imposition of additional terms. GRSecurity imposed an additional term. No you cannot be "cute" by placing the additional term in a separate writing, verbal agreement, or course of doing business: it is an additional term no-matter how you memorialize it (or even if you choose not to memorialize it).

        The act of adding an additional term in-and-of-itself is a violation of the license grant.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by requerdanos on Saturday February 10 2018, @02:36PM (5 children)

          by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 10 2018, @02:36PM (#636005) Journal

          They were at liberty to distribute the patches if they wanted to, but doing so would terminate their subscription. This meant that they weren't technically violating the GPL

          Incorrect. The GPLv2 forbids the imposition of additional terms. GRSecurity imposed an additional term. No you cannot be "cute" by placing the additional term in a separate writing, verbal agreement, or course of doing business: it is an additional term no-matter how you memorialize it (or even if you choose not to memorialize it).

          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.

          [GP:] The problem for GrSecurity was that most people didn't think that this was a good deal

          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)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @03:58PM (#636024)

            >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)

              by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 10 2018, @05:12PM (#636059) Journal

              By who?

              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

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 12 2018, @08:38AM (#636611)

                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

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 12 2018, @08:48AM (#636613)

            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

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 12 2018, @08:50AM (#636614)

            "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?

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by TheRaven on Saturday February 10 2018, @05:52PM (8 children)

          by TheRaven (270) on Saturday February 10 2018, @05:52PM (#636074) Journal
          They weren't imposing additional terms to the code that you received under the GPL. You were free to take their patches and use them under the terms of the GPL. If you did distribute them, then nothing happened to your rights to the code that you had already received under the terms of the GPL. You retained the rights granted to you under the GPL, you retained the obligations that the GPL placed you under, and no others applied. You just wouldn't be given any more code under the terms of the GPL by GrSecurity.

          The extra terms were not related to the code that you received under the GPL. They only applied to code that you had not yet received, and as soon as you did receive the code then the only terms that applied to that patch set were those present in the GPL.

          I am completely free, under the GPL, to give you code for free and charge you for bug fixes or new features. That is something that Stallman not only accepts, but actively encourages and is inherent to the business model of companies like Red Hat. Similarly, if you don't want to pay me for fixes or features then you are free to ask someone else to implement them instead. I am free to impose any terms that I like in the contract that I agree with you for writing new code, because that's independent of the license under which I give you the code. At any point, either of us may terminate the agreement under which I provide you with new code. You still retain the rights that I have granted to you for existing code.

          --
          sudo mod me up
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 11 2018, @11:32PM (7 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 11 2018, @11:32PM (#636489)

            this is the correct analysis. i don't think it needed to come to this, though. i think grsecurity could have came up with a donation/business model that worked instead of being lazy about it then getting mad at people for not just donating blindly until some unknown threshold of financial appreciation had been reached. this is what happens when programmers do the business, the PR and the marketing, i guess.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 12 2018, @08:27AM (6 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 12 2018, @08:27AM (#636609)

              No it is not. And yes, I am a lawyer.

              The license agreement is not between the distributor and the code, nor the distributee and the code, nor the licensee and the code.
              The license agreement is between the licensee and the licensor, and the licensor and the distributee (and the licensor and the distributee).

              The license forbids the addition of any additional terms be imposed upon the relationship between the licensee and the further distributee regarding their relationship arising around the licensed article (the code).
              GRSecurity no only imposes a no-distribution term upon said relationship (a relationship only existing in relation to the licensed article (the code)), it threatens the distributee with a penalty if the distributee violates the additional no-distribution term.

              Yes. GRSecurity is violating the license grant by adding an additional term to the agreement between the parties (between itself and the further distributes).

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 12 2018, @08:29AM (5 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 12 2018, @08:29AM (#636610)

                *not only

                No it is not. And yes, I am a lawyer.

                The license agreement is not between the distributor and the code, nor the distributee and the code, nor the licensee and the code.
                The license agreement is between the licensee and the licensor, and the licensor and the distributee (and the licensor and the distributee).

                The license forbids the addition of any additional terms be imposed upon the relationship between the licensee and the further distributee regarding their relationship arising around the licensed article (the code).
                *GRSecurity not only imposes a no-distribution term upon said relationship (a relationship only existing in relation to the licensed article (the code)), it threatens the distributee with a penalty if the distributee violates the additional no-distribution term.

                Yes. GRSecurity is violating the license grant by adding an additional term to the agreement between the parties (between itself and the further distributes).

                • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Monday February 12 2018, @11:03AM (4 children)

                  by TheRaven (270) on Monday February 12 2018, @11:03AM (#636630) Journal
                  If you were a lawyer, then you would know that you shouldn't be giving legal advice to someone who is not your client, though perhaps that's why you are anonymous. You would also know that the GPL doesn't prohibit adding extra terms, it requires that the recipient receives the same rights that you receive, which is not quite the same thing. The recipient does receive the same rights to the Linux kernel + GrSecurity that GrSecurity receives to the Linux kernel. They are also granted an extra right to future work by GrSecurity in exchange for a consideration (money and a promise not to distribute the GrSecurity code).
                  --
                  sudo mod me up
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 13 2018, @01:16PM (3 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 13 2018, @01:16PM (#637088)

                    >You would also know that the GPL doesn't prohibit adding extra terms, it requires that the recipient receives the same rights that you receive, which is not quite the same thing.

                    From section 6:
                    "You may not impose any further
                    restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."

                    The text of the grant disagrees. You may not impose any further restrictions...
                    IE: No additional terms.

                    GrSecurity requires distributees to agree to it's no-distribution restriction, in writing.

                    (Also note:)
                    (4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
                    except as expressly provided under this License. )

                    >If you were a lawyer, then you would know that you shouldn't be giving legal advice to someone who is not your client, though perhaps that's why you are anonymous.
                    Trying to threaten me because you don't like what I say?
                    I am a lawyer. I am a programmer. Deny it all you want.
                    Who do you think induced the action you see occuring?
                    Why do you think said arguments were accepted?
                    Is it because "I'm not a lawyer" and "don't know what I'm talking about" or is it because I am an attorney and I do know what I'm talking about?

                    >If you were a lawyer, then you would know
                    Sometimes one must act for the greater good. Sometimes one must inform lay-people of their legal rights... so that they may know that they have them in the first place.

                    ----
                    " 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
                    except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
                    otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
                    void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
                    However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under
                    this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
                    parties remain in full compliance."

                    " 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
                    Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
                    original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
                    these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
                    restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
                    You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
                    this License."

                    • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Tuesday February 13 2018, @02:13PM (2 children)

                      by TheRaven (270) on Tuesday February 13 2018, @02:13PM (#637107) Journal

                      You would also know that the GPL doesn't prohibit adding extra terms, it requires that the recipient receives the same rights that you receive, which is not quite the same thing.

                      From section 6: "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." The text of the grant disagrees. You may not impose any further restrictions... IE: No additional terms.

                      No, it says exactly what I said. You may not restrict their rights, but that's not what GrSecurity is doing. As the recipient of their patches, you are free to exercise the terms of the GPL. If you do so, then they will no longer sell you future versions of their code, but you retain all of the the rights granted to you by the GPL to the code that you have received.

                      " 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance."

                      Again, this does not contradict what GrSecurity was doing. They gave you the code under the GPL, you are free to exercise the rights under the GPL. They also have a contract with you to give you new versions of the code. If you distribute the code, then they will not give you future versions. This kind of thing isn't even unusual in contract law: here are a set of terms that you may exercise at any time, if you exercise the terms in contract A then we reserve the right to terminate contract B.

                      --
                      sudo mod me up
                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 13 2018, @02:59PM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 13 2018, @02:59PM (#637120)

                        Stick to code, kid.

                        GPLv2 forbids additional terms added to the agreement between the licencee and those to whom the licensee distributes the work (or derivative work). (distributees)
                        Terms can be memorialized or not. They can be verbal, be evinced by a course of business dealings, or be in a writing.
                        Here the additional terms added to the agreement were in a writing (they are memorialized).

                        You, a programmer, believe that the paper that the GPL v2 is printed on is "the agreement" (or the file in which the text of the GPL v2 resides). This shows your inadequacy in dealing with even slightly abstract topics.

                        Stick to code. Nothing personal.

                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 13 2018, @03:05PM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 13 2018, @03:05PM (#637123)

                        Incorrect. The GPLv2 forbids the imposition of additional restrictive terms. GRSecurity imposed an additional restrictive term. No you cannot be "cute" by placing the additional term in a separate writing, verbal agreement, or course of doing business: it is an additional term no-matter how you memorialize it (or even if you choose not to memorialize it).
                        And yes: IAAL.

                        "You may not restrict their rights, but that's not what GrSecurity is doing."
                        Yes it is. GrSecurity is assessing a penalty for the exercise of a explicitly permitted action. It is a restriction and a violation of the license grant.
                        Argue all you want. You are not a lawyer. I am. You are simply wrong.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by http on Saturday February 10 2018, @05:50PM (1 child)

      by http (1920) on Saturday February 10 2018, @05:50PM (#636072)

      tl;dr

      --
      I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
      • (Score: 2) by requerdanos on Saturday February 10 2018, @06:19PM

        by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 10 2018, @06:19PM (#636083) Journal

        tl;dr

        This is such a common problem, not just here but in many places throughout the free software community, that there's actually a help command that, for usefulness, beats the heck out of man and GNU info... Called tldr.

        For example, info tar and man tar both return more than 1100 lines of minutia.

        tldr tar, by contrast, returns only a handful examples, two of which are "Create a gzipped archive" and "Extract a gzipped archive in the current directory." Sometimes less is more.

        You can install it (I did), or use tldr on the web [ostera.io].

  • (Score: 2) by archfeld on Saturday February 10 2018, @02:37AM (22 children)

    by archfeld (4650) <treboreel@live.com> on Saturday February 10 2018, @02:37AM (#635842) Journal

    Was it in fact meritless or did they just lose ? There is a huge difference. If it wasn't thrown from court I'd say it would be hard to prove meritless....

    --
    For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
    • (Score: 5, Informative) by requerdanos on Saturday February 10 2018, @02:54AM (6 children)

      by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 10 2018, @02:54AM (#635845) Journal

      Was it in fact meritless or did they just lose ? There is a huge difference.

      It was meritless; they sued him for saying what I said above [soylentnews.org], and for saying that participating in their licensing game might put you on risky legal footing. Which it very well might.

      Their lawsuit was a textbook SLAPP suit [anti-slapp.org]:

      SLAPPs are Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. These... chill free speech and healthy debate by targeting those who... speak out on issues of public interest. SLAPPs are used to silence and harass critics by forcing them to spend money to defend these baseless suits. SLAPP filers don’t go to court to seek justice. Rather, SLAPPS are intended to intimidate those who disagree with them or their activities by draining the target’s financial resources.

      It was not filed because Perens was wrong (Perens wasn't wrong). It was filed because Perens pointing out GRSecurity's nonsense was damaging to GRSecurity continuing said nonsense.

      If Perens had just been wrong, GRSecurity probably would have published a rebuttal and gotten on with it. Perens' statements didn't damage GRSecurity so much as their own shady behavior which he called them out on.

      • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @06:53AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @06:53AM (#635908)

        Note: What Perens wrote in his article, with the exception of the contributory copyright infringement claim, were the same arguments that MikeeUSA had been making for over a year. The reason for this may be that Perens was in correspondence with said entity. People here doubted that MikeeUSA was an attorney. One wonders if they still hold strong to that belief.

        One notes that the reason people doubted MikeeUSA is because he supported the old testament opinion that it was fine for men to marry female children.

      • (Score: 2) by archfeld on Sunday February 11 2018, @04:22AM (4 children)

        by archfeld (4650) <treboreel@live.com> on Sunday February 11 2018, @04:22AM (#636257) Journal

        Thanks for the information, and the further explanation. So much of this stuff, while extremely relevant is very esoteric and far outside my admittedly small scope of knowledge. I've a basic legal knowledge from a criminal and penal background in law enforcement but contract law is a whole different kettle of stinking fish.

        --
        For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
        • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 11 2018, @08:43AM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 11 2018, @08:43AM (#636306)

          > I've a basic legal knowledge from a criminal and penal background in law enforcement but contract law is a whole different kettle of stinking fish.

          If it's difficult for you, then you're a moron.

          But what is to be expected from white men? White men oppose men taking cute young girls as brides (Allowed in Devarim chapter 22, verse 28 (hebrew)), since such is against the interests of "muh white wuman". The white man is a golem of the white woman. Her solider and her mule. Thus the white man opposes the god, and does the will of the "MUH WHITE WUMAN"

          • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by archfeld on Sunday February 11 2018, @08:22PM (2 children)

            by archfeld (4650) <treboreel@live.com> on Sunday February 11 2018, @08:22PM (#636428) Journal

            Since when is a Hebrew a white man ? The people of Israel are those of color. Unless you are stupid enough to buy the blond haired blue eyed Jesus figure. Bottom line what does religion or color have to do with the discussion? I'd say you are just so lacking in any degree of self confidence or self respect that you can't deal with a full grown women on a one to one basis and prefer your 'equal' to be a 12 year old girl.

            --
            For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
            • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 12 2018, @08:10AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 12 2018, @08:10AM (#636607)

              The white man opposes the law of the hebrews.

              You read the statement incorrectly.
              The white man worships "muh white wuman", not the god.

              The white man's law is whatever is in the best interests of the white woman.
              This is why he opposes marrying cute young girls (something that is allowed in the hebrew law)

            • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 12 2018, @08:17AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 12 2018, @08:17AM (#636608)

              Most men's social equal is a virgin young girl.

              "Full grown adult women" are whores who have had sex with many men. That is their occupation. They are experienced professionals. They know how to work men.
              The set containing said 'many men' are, however, only 20 percent of the male population. This is the population that women who's profession is to be a woman choose.
              Professional Women reject the other 80 percent of men for having not enough money to be worth their while, or for not being equal in professionalism to themselves.

              The other 80 percent of men have little to no social experience of this nature.
              Their equal is the little girl.

              (The most the Professional Woman will allow said 80 percent of men is an economic marriage when she is 30 or older: where she soon divorces the provider drone and makes him a slave.)
              (To provide herself with this windfall, the Professional _WO_man bans men from taking female children as brides)

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday February 10 2018, @03:35AM (14 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 10 2018, @03:35AM (#635853) Journal

      I think that requerdanos has it summed up nicely. GRSecurity was pretty much in the wrong, from start to finish. The suit was meant to silence a critic - and not just any critic, but an influential critic. I don't think a lawsuit can get much more slappy than this one.

      --
      Keep all chemicals out of the reach of meth heads.
      • (Score: 2) by EETech1 on Saturday February 10 2018, @06:44AM (1 child)

        by EETech1 (957) on Saturday February 10 2018, @06:44AM (#635904)

        The only way to get the good stuff when it's pertinent, is to pay the fee. If you want to exercise your rights to redistribute said software that you paid a fee for, well you might just lose your ability to access that software, even for a fee!

        • (Score: 2) by requerdanos on Saturday February 10 2018, @05:26PM

          by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 10 2018, @05:26PM (#636064) Journal

          If you want to exercise your rights [wrt] software... well you might just lose your ability to access that software

          With due respect, if you "might just" get penalized for exercising your basic rights, then they aren't rights at all, they are prohibitions enforced with said penalties.

          Within the context of security, inability to update to a current version is especially bad, because previous versions are the ones that tend to have the better-known exploits--so it's a harsh penalty for violation that prohibition*.

          -------
          * Prohibition: n. The act of prohibiting; a law or decree that forbids. (dictionary.com [dictionary.com]) Contrast with Right. n. a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral, or that which is due by just claim; ex. "You have the right to say what you want." (dictionary.com [dictionary.com]) This isn't Rocket Science n. A notoriously difficult area of the sciences, especially with respect to physics, treating the subject of convincing rockets (q.v.) to navigate as desired while interacting with comparatively powerful forces on a planetary, galactic, or universal scale.

      • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @07:01AM (11 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @07:01AM (#635911)

        Strange... when MikeeUSA spoke here about the GRSecurity issue you all said he was nuts.

        Then seemingly he spoke to Bruce Perens (on public mailing lists).
        Then strangely, we see a very similar opinion regarding the legal matters on Bruce's website a few days after.
        Same rhyme and meter.

        And then we see said language quoted in the Order (53 Order.pdf) (though just as a summary of the speech of the defendant)

        Now it's "obvious" GRS was wrong, when before it was "obvious" GRS was right and MikeeUSA was "wrong"...

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday February 10 2018, @10:32AM (5 children)

          by c0lo (156) on Saturday February 10 2018, @10:32AM (#635959)

          Strange... when MikeeUSA spoke here about the GRSecurity issue you all said he was nuts.

          Linkies or it didn't happen.

          • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @01:08PM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @01:08PM (#635990)

            Timeline is this:

            GRSec closes patches.
            MikeeUSA is unhappy about this.
            Informs Spengler that he is going to sue GRSec one way or another.
            MikeeUSA Complains on the chans, the linux mailing list, the debian mailing list, ubuntu mailing list, redhat mailing list, writes articles for websites such as this, explains how GRSec is violating the license, explains the law, etc.
            Everyone says MikeeUSA is nuts, not a lawyer, not a programmer either, etc.
            MikeeUSA contacts keyholders in the free/opensource community. RMS, Perens, etc.
            Discussion ensues (forwarded to linux and debian mailinglists).
            Perens publishes an article that mirrors MikeeUSA's legal opinion (with the exception of the contributory copyright addendum).
            Brad Spengler sues Perens.
            Spengler Loses...
            Judge tells him she doesn't see how his claims are not merit-less and hints that an anti-SLAPP action against Spengler would likely be successful.
            and here we are .

            But MikeeUSA is a fucking retard and isn't a programmer and doesn't know shit when it comes to law. Right? Right?

            • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday February 10 2018, @01:34PM (1 child)

              by c0lo (156) on Saturday February 10 2018, @01:34PM (#635998)

              Somehow on that list of list MikeeUSA used doesn't contain Soylentnews.
              As such, why do you say

              when MikeeUSA spoke here about the GRSecurity issue you all said he was nuts.

              mmm?

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @03:56PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @03:56PM (#636023)

                How does it feel?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 11 2018, @05:46AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 11 2018, @05:46AM (#636276)

            I found this article from 2015: GRSecurity Linux Kernel Patch to End Public Accessability of Stable Patches [soylentnews.org].

            I assume that's what MikeeUSA is talking about, anyway. He spammed that comment section, too, but it's too close to bedtime for me to care to slog through it.

            • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 11 2018, @08:48AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 11 2018, @08:48AM (#636308)

              "he spammed that comments section too"
              Do you feel he has not the right to do what he will with what is his?

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday February 10 2018, @11:02AM (2 children)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 10 2018, @11:02AM (#635967) Journal

          I double checked my user page. I'm not the "you all" of whom you speak. And, these are not the bots you seek. And, neither the bots nor I ever made any claims that GRSecurity was in the right.

          On the other hand, some of those other bots posting here at Soylent are outright evil . . .

          --
          Keep all chemicals out of the reach of meth heads.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @01:10PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @01:10PM (#635991)

            Who started the fire?
            _

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by HiThere on Saturday February 10 2018, @06:19PM (1 child)

          by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 10 2018, @06:19PM (#636084)

          That's almost irrelevant.

          I may think the legal argument is nuts, but making it puts you in danger of being sued anyway. And those statements are not contradictory.

          I actually *do* think that GRSecurities reported agreement is legal. (IANAL) But so what? This doesn't mean I think that depending on it doesn't put you in danger of being sued, and that's legal trouble.

          --
          Put not your faith in princes.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 11 2018, @08:39AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 11 2018, @08:39AM (#636305)

            "IANAL". Indeed, you have no basis for your thoughts, and you are incorrect.

            Stick to code, kid.

            GPLv2 forbids additional terms added to the agreement between the licencee and those to whom the licensee distributes the work (or derivative work). (distributees)
            Terms can be memorialized or not. They can be verbal, be evinced by a course of business dealings, or be in a writing.
            Here the additional terms added to the agreement were in a writing (they are memorialized).

            You, a programmer, believe that the paper that the GPL v2 is printed on is "the agreement" (or the file in which the text of the GPL v2 resides). This shows your inadequacy in dealing with even slightly abstract topics.

            Stick to code. Nothing personal.

  • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @06:46AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @06:46AM (#635905)

    Everyone was saying MikeeUSA was nuts and incorrect on the underlying issue...
    (not that the underlying issue has been directly adjudicated).

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @07:21AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @07:21AM (#635919)

    To celebrate Peren's victory and vigor let us have an OpenSource Lan party!:

    https://lgdb.org/game/bzflag [lgdb.org] - BZFlag is a free online multiplayer cross-platform open source 3D tank battle game.
    https://lgdb.org/game/chaosesque-anthology [lgdb.org] - FOSS shooter with over 180 weapons (Xonotic Fork)
    https://lgdb.org/game/urban_terror [lgdb.org] - Realistic style FPS
    https://lgdb.org/game/warsow [lgdb.org] - Warsow / War§ow is a free standalone first person shooter game for Windows and Linux.

  • (Score: 2) by bradley13 on Saturday February 10 2018, @08:27AM (5 children)

    by bradley13 (3053) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 10 2018, @08:27AM (#635936) Homepage Journal

    I'm all for anti-SLAPP, if they can prove that the case was meritless, but I am seriously bothered by the amount they want to recover.

    "$667,665.25 in fees, which covers 833.9 hours expended on the litigation by numerous attorneys and a $188,687.75 success fee"

    Leaving aside the "success fee" for the moment (although, reading the filing [regmedia.co.uk], this also goes to the attorneys), this comes out to $575/hour. In what world is that a sane hourly fee for professional services?

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Saturday February 10 2018, @10:33AM (2 children)

      by c0lo (156) on Saturday February 10 2018, @10:33AM (#635960)

      Do you mean to ask "In what world do you find lawyers so cheap"?

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Saturday February 10 2018, @02:22PM (1 child)

        by bzipitidoo (4388) on Saturday February 10 2018, @02:22PM (#636003) Journal

        Lawyers are too expensive, for a variety of reasons, and a big one is that the high fees put a real, punitive bite in the losers of civil law suits, which of course makes SLAPP so effective.

        10 years ago I was in an injury auto-accident that was totally the other driver's fault (he ran the red light), and got to see how it worked firsthand. The lawyers delicately egged the doctors on to perform every procedure even remotely related to recovering from the injuries, and to charge sky high fees for it all. They didn't need to say anything-- the medics already know what the lawyers want, and hardly need additional motivation to line their own pockets. But just in case the doctors aren't greedy, there's also the implied threat of legal action against the doctors hanging over their heads if they don't do everything under the sun. Test, CYA, and charge, baby, charge! The lawyers then take those inflated numbers, jack it up another 50% to 100%, just in case, justifying that by extrapolating further medical costs as it takes time to heal up, then add 33% more for themselves, and demand the insurers of the other party pay that amount. The insurers meantime will have worked up their own too low numbers and offer that lowball amount. The lawyers and insurers haggle and come to an agreement somewhere in the middle, and present that to the injured parties. If they accept the first, second, or possibly third offer, and usually the amount is large enough that accepting is a good idea, then it gets settled out of court and that's that. Sometimes though, it does go on to court. For instance, if the insurer doesn't believe the numbers, if there was some miscommunication, if the insurer is desperate to reduce payouts for claims.... Another nasty factor is they will be calculating how it will play to a jury. If the injured people come across as privileged assholes, and their car was a high end luxury vehicle, they will be more likely to fight than if the injured people were driving a cheap, old, used economy box car and seem to be nice, reasonable, regular folks that the big bad insurance company is trying to bully and cheat.

        So yeah, the legal system has all kinds of motivations and opportunities to charge scary high prices. They seem to be unofficial partners with the medical community. I have lots of sympathy for somehow reducing these outrageous prices, stopping the bill padding and cleaning up the corruption, though I don't think the idea of damage caps is the way to go. Anti-SLAPP is really a finger-sized bandage on a body that needs a tourniquet to stop the bleeding. Perhaps it wouldn't be necessary if legal costs weren't so insanely high.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 12 2018, @08:52AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 12 2018, @08:52AM (#636615)

          Why shouldn't lawyers be expensive?

          You normies banned every natural pleasure (marrying cute virgin young girls etc etc) to please "muh white wuman":
          The only pleasure left undisturbed is consumption. This requires money.

          So your betters extract more of that from you; since you have extracted all pleasure from the life.

          "Extra dumb, normie scum, Moo"

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @10:34AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @10:34AM (#635961)

      this comes out to $575/hour. In what world is that a sane hourly fee for professional services?

      This isn't bad at all for high end legal services. Go hire a lawyer for something, and while you're there ask the lawyer if they can recommend an affordable bankruptcy attorney (because you'll need one once you get the lawyer's bill).

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @01:54PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @01:54PM (#636001)

        Yeah, lawyers are expensive, especially when they have to argue in court. I paid 1500/hr for a decent criminal defense lawyer, and Perens probably had more lawyers than just the one. 500/hr is cheap.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @09:25AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @09:25AM (#635948)

    Who started the fire?

  • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @01:02PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @01:02PM (#635987)

    Timeline is this:

    GRSec closes patches.
    MikeeUSA is unhappy about this.
    Informs Spengler that he is going to sue GRSec one way or another.
    MikeeUSA Complains on the chans, the linux mailing list, the debian mailing list, ubuntu mailing list, redhat mailing list, writes articles for websites such as this, explains how GRSec is violating the license, explains the law, etc.
    Everyone says MikeeUSA is nuts, not a lawyer, not a programmer either, etc.
    MikeeUSA contacts keyholders in the free/opensource community. RMS, Perens, etc.
    Discussion ensues (forwarded to linux and debian mailinglists).
    Perens publishes an article that mirrors MikeeUSA's legal opinion (with the exception of the contributory copyright addendum).
    Brad Spengler sues Perens.
    Spengler Loses.
    Judge tells him she doesn't see how his claims are not merit-less and hints that an anti-SLAPP action against Spengler would likely be successful.
    and here we are .

    But MikeeUSA is a fucking retard and isn't a programmer and doesn't know shit when it comes to law. Right? Right?

  • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @01:14PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @01:14PM (#635992)

    Madd props to Bruce.

    I'd like to read the work product the Copyright Lawyer produced, as it would be pertinent to the underlying issue of GRSecurity vs Linux's GPLv2 terms.

    Madd fucking props yo!

    (Do you all feel me?)
    (Do you know what I'm saying)
    (grumble ...Lawyer ... Bullshit... grumble)

    BTW You techies seem madd that the lawyers make money apparently.
    You see they have this thing called a "union" (Bar Associations).
    Something you "brilliant" techies "don't need nu uhve"

    Also I notice you techies are opposed to men taking young girls as brides; thus you oppose the law of the god.

  • (Score: 0, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @01:21PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @01:21PM (#635994)

    So is MikeeUSA still "not a programmer and not a lawyer"?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 11 2018, @12:35AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 11 2018, @12:35AM (#636185)

      I hear he recently took up cum guzzling so his sexual pleasure now comes from fellating unwashed indian, african and middle eastern men. His usual flurry of immensely important internet activity is now unnecessary as he has found peace inside of a mans scrotum.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 11 2018, @08:45AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 11 2018, @08:45AM (#636307)

        So is MikeeUSA still "not a programmer and not a lawyer"?
        .

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 12 2018, @08:41AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 12 2018, @08:41AM (#636612)

    Alot of Techies seem pissed at the notion that some lawyers bill 800 dollars per hour.

    They cry that they only made 60 dollars per hour in the boom.

    How does it feel, Techies?

    Techies that reject the law of God that allows men to take girl children as brides?

(1)