SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 11 2018, @11:32PM (7 children)
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)
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)
*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)
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 13 2018, @01:16PM (3 children)
>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)
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.
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
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
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.