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

 
This discussion has been archived.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.
  • (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"...

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   -1  
       Spam=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Spam' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   -1  
  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday February 10 2018, @10:32AM (5 children)

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

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

    Linkies or it didn't happen.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
    • (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) Journal

        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?

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
        • (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) Homepage 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 . . .

    --
    There is a supply side shortage of pronouns. You will take whatever you are offered.
    • (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) on Saturday February 10 2018, @06:19PM (#636084) Journal

    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.

    --
    Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
    • (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.