SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @09:25AM (2 children)
Grsecurity is also violating the GCC copyrights with their GCC plugins with their no-redistribution clause (which is forbidden by the GPL), atleast following the RMS's opinion on the non-separability of plugins.
Look: you can do business or not business with "whomever" you want, with you work. The same doesn't apply when you are subject to the copyright protections of other entities. They can say "no, you cannot engage in these acts with out work". Which the GPL states explicitly: no additional restrictions (GRSecurity blatantly adds such a restriction in writing)
They should be sued by the FSF, and by the Linux Kernel copyright holders. Regardless of what Linus and the "linux foundation" want.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @09:14PM (1 child)
"with their no-redistribution clause (which is forbidden by the GPL)"
uhh, i don't think they modified the goddamn GPL when they distribute their modified kernel to their customers. lol.
what they did, i believe, is not sell their kernel to anyone who doesn't sign a business contract that says if you redistribute this contract is severed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 18 2020, @11:54AM
You are an idiot.
The GPL forbids adding additional restrictive terms between the licensee and whomever he distributes the GPL'd program to.
It is not merely "you can't pen in additional terms on this piece of paper, lolZZZZ"
It is: You may not add any additional terms at all between you and the recipient, weather they are on this piece of paper, or spoken, or on another piece of paper, or simply understood.
Do you understand, fucking retard?