SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/08/03/linux_kernel_grsecurity_sues_bruce_perens_for_defamation/
In late June, noted open-source programmer Bruce Perens warned that using Grsecurity's Linux kernel security could invite legal trouble.
"As a customer, it's my opinion that you would be subject to both contributory infringement and breach of contract by employing this product in conjunction with the Linux kernel under the no-redistribution policy currently employed by Grsecurity," Perens wrote on his blog.
The following month, Perens was invited to court. Grsecurity sued the open-source doyen, his web host, and as-yet-unidentified defendants who may have helped him draft that post, for defamation and business interference.
Grsecurity offers Linux kernel security patches on a paid-for subscription basis. The software hardens kernel defenses through checks for common errors like memory overflows. Perens, meanwhile, is known for using the Debian Free Software Guidelines to draft the Open Source Definition, with the help of others.
Linus Torvalds, who oversees the Linux kernel, has called Grsecurity's patches "garbage".
... (read the rest at the register)
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 06 2017, @01:16AM (17 children)
Once those idiot lawyers get started in court, they're going to try finding ways to challenge the GPL, in all of it's versions. And, the other idiots on the other side are going to be trying to defend FOSS, which has never been necessary before.
When they start arguing details, they're going to lose sight of The Big Picture ™ and FOSS is likely to take some hard hits.
As with any military campaign, the plan of battle is always the first casualty. GRSecurity is going to come up with something that nullifies all of FOSS plans, and vice versa.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @01:25AM (7 children)
As an author of free software covered by the GPL, I look forward to seeing the GPL invalidated and having my code stolen. I wouldn't have made the source code public if I didn't want people to have it, and I've never really cared about the petty distinction between free software and freeware.
(Score: 2) by pvanhoof on Sunday August 06 2017, @06:23AM (6 children)
If the GPL is nullified that would mean everybody who has a copy of your work falls under normal copyright restrictions. No matter if you've made its source code available publicly, would every owner of a copy still have to consider the standard copyright laws. You then own the copyright of the work, they don't and they have no right to use of distribute your work.
The GPL license gives them rights. It doesn't take away any rights. By nullifying the GPL, they would have less rights on your work.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @07:01AM (3 children)
Freeware is sale for free under copyright. All rights reserved. Except the author willfully sold the software for free. Permission to use was thereby granted.
If someone takes the source code and makes a derivative of the copyrighted work then the author can sue for damages. But that was always true under copyright.
What the GPL really does is it gives the author the right to sue the maker of a derivative work for very specific damages: the complete source code of that derivative work.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Sunday August 06 2017, @01:57PM (2 children)
Not really - they could always settle for the usual copyright-infringement penalties as demonstrated by the RIAA and friends: ridiculous fines and potential jail time for each infringement, and a permanent injunction against any further distribution of any derived works.
What the GPL actually does is give infringers an "easy out" by getting into compliance with the terms of the only license that would allow them to have legally redistributed the work in the first place. Definitely not their first choice, but when they've been caught red-handed engaging in illegal activity with extremely steep mandatory penalties, settling for just sharing the work they've done no doubt starts looking really good. Especially when they realize that part of paying the fines is also to essentially throw away all their work because distributing it again would then unquestionably be willful infringement, with even worse penalties.
And actually, I don't believe it's even the GPL that does that so much as a community that's consistently been willing to "forgive and forget" once they get into compliance - pretty sure that legally getting into compliance only indemnifies their future activities, their past ones are still flat-out copyright infringement.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Monday August 07 2017, @02:30AM (1 child)
They could pay the enormous penalties, and release their software with new code that replaces the GPL part of their product. Still costly. but it doesn't involve giving away their work.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday August 08 2017, @03:05PM
Yes, they could. But in most cases the GPLed portion vastly outweighs their own contribution, so it's not very likely. The fact that so few companies choose to go that route when caught should suggest something about its relative appeal.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @10:49AM
Not me, you complete legal shibboleth! Ha! I got my copy, and now I can ban all of you from having your copy, if only I can date the copyright claim, or the negotiation of the copyright transfer, to earlier than everyone else! Ha aha ha! I am going to be rich! I will have total control! Look upon my power, and despair! I am the Software version of PharmaBro, bros!
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Sunday August 06 2017, @01:30PM
You then own the copyright of the work
One doesn't own a copyright, one merely HOLDS copyright. It's a 95 year lease that starts when you die. And yes, I hold lots of copyrights, many or them registered with the copyright office. I still release them under a version of the GPL.
The GPL is a license to use the work, just as when a magazine publisher "buys" a story, what they are buying is a license to publish it, not the story itself.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Whoever on Sunday August 06 2017, @02:08AM
Not these idiot lawyers, because they won't survive the inevitable anti-SLAPP motion. Their client will be paying Perens' legal bills.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @02:18AM (2 children)
Time to update your facts database. FOSS has been defended, and even uphold in court. See NeXT's ObjC contribution to GCC https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html [gnu.org] for an out of court deal (and probably the reason Apple now goes with as much as BSD code as they can, they prefer one-way-sharing, "ours is ours and your is ours", or "we want to keep control" if you want to be polite, after all they opened Swift). But if you want a court case instead, see this one https://www.xda-developers.com/us-district-court-rules-gnu-gpl-is-an-enforceable-contract/ [xda-developers.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 06 2017, @02:22AM (1 child)
It's the court cases that count. Settlements don't establish precedence for future court cases.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @10:49PM
FWIW, settlements can establish precedence for future court cases in many court systems in the U.S. First is that they can function against mutual parties in any regard due to issue preclusion between them. Second is that many settlements, especially between parties with deep pockets, are ratified by consent decrees; this allows full collateral estoppel, even between non-mutual parties, and it can act as precedent, as it is considered a final judgment.
(Score: 4, Informative) by krishnoid on Sunday August 06 2017, @02:32AM
It's been defended before, once rather recently [lwn.net], in fact.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @03:25AM (1 child)
You weren't around for the SCO wars, were you?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @10:55AM
I was there when Pruce Berens screwed the pooch and realized that MBA types could not abide by "free software", and so he came up with "open source software", and with much anal sex and negotiation, managed to birth "FOSS", that terrible acronym that haunts the free software community to this day. If only Bruce had gone the way of ESR and become a scaredy-cat ammosexual. Please send some money to ESR, he is opposed to socialized medicine, but someone in his family needs some medicine, and Open Source Medicine is just not cutting it.
(Score: 3, Funny) by jasassin on Sunday August 06 2017, @06:05AM (1 child)
Somewhere, Sun Tzu is spinning in his grave.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @10:59AM
Come, now! You were expecting strategic insight from a petty officer (extremely petty, or just an "able bodied seaman"!) who served for a couple months in a time of peace? It is Runaway, for Christ's Sake! He barely knows who to hate today, until he has tuned into Faux News.