Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Linux Kernel Patch Maker Says Court Case Was Only Way Out

posted by Fnord666 on Sunday February 16 2020, @02:22PM   Printer-friendly
from the no-way-out dept.

An Anonymous Coward writes:

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

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Linux Kernel Patch Maker Says Court Case Was Only Way Out | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 157 comments | Search Discussion
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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 16 2020, @11:20PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 16 2020, @11:20PM (#958933)

    It's an interesting problem, same as when the person who did the distribution doesn't have the source and can't get it from the person they got the program from.

    If you can't respect the license, don't do anything the license doesn't allow you to.
    If you can't distribute the source together with the binaries for a GPL licensed software, don't distribute the binaries.

  • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Monday February 17 2020, @12:45AM (1 child)

    by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Monday February 17 2020, @12:45AM (#958951) Journal
    The GPL doesn't require you to distribute a copy of the source when you distribute the program. Read it. The only thing it requires is that you, for a period of 3 years, offer to make a copy of the source available, only to those you distribute it to.

    So last week you download and distribute a program. This week people ask you for the source, you go to download a copy from the person you got it from, they're in a coma and their server is offline.

    Do you have an obligation to obtain the source elsewhere? No, and in the case of modified software it may not even be possible if the only source is in a coma.

    Are you in violation of the GPL? Again, no. As a matter of public policy, impossible contracts are void, and the GPL is a contract which is now attempting to impose an impossible obligation on you.

    The GPL has a few flaws in it that give rise to anomalous situations where the GPL simply can't be applied.

    --
    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, @08:47AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @08:47AM (#959079)

      The GPL doesn't require you to distribute a copy of the source when you distribute the program. Read it. The only thing it requires is that you, for a period of 3 years, offer to make a copy of the source available, only to those you distribute it to.

      Yes. It requires the distributor of the binaries to make the source available at no more than nominal charge of distributing the said source.

      So, as soon as someone asks for the source, you are obliged to distribute the source to them. If you fail to do this *and* continue to distribute the binary, then you are of course breaking the copyright law and can be held liable both in a civil or legal sense.

      In essence, if you make some derivative work of GPL to general public, then your competitor could buy a copy and require you to provide source code. At that point they could just distribute it free of charge. And if you fail to produce source code, you are breaking GPL. If you fail to sell to them, you are breaking other laws. Have a nice day.

      Are you in violation of the GPL? Again, no. As a matter of public policy, impossible contracts are void, and the GPL is a contract which is now attempting to impose an impossible obligation on you.

      GPL is not a contract.

      It's a copyright license. You are infringing copyright (breaking copyright laws) if you are distributing things without adhering to the said license.