Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
posted by Fnord666 on Sunday February 16 2020, @02:22PM   Printer-friendly
from the no-way-out dept.

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:

Court Orders Payment of $259,900.50 to Bruce Perens' Attorneys

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This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by Immerman on Monday February 17 2020, @04:41PM

    by Immerman (3985) on Monday February 17 2020, @04:41PM (#959201)

    >Back in the 80s I'm sure I wasn't the only one modifying binaries with a hex editor. If I were to do that today I could redistribute the binaries and never give the source because there is no source, never was.

    Except that the instant you distribute you're violating copyright law - unless you have a license that allows you to distribute. As some kid sharing stuff with friends in the pre-napster days, you were unlikely to get caught, but that doesn't make it any more legal.

    Do that with any proprietary software, and the original copyright holder will be fully within their legal rights to come down on you like a ton of bricks for copyright infringement

    Do that with GPLed software - and either you provide the source code on demand as required by the license, or the original copyright holder will be fully within their legal rights to come down on you like a ton of bricks for copyright infringement.

    The GPL is the only thing allowing you to redistribute the code legally, so if you're not 100% in compliance with the license - including providing source code on demand, then you're automatically guilty of copyright infringement.

    Sounds like GRSecurity isn't obviously violating the letter of the GPL, assuming they really do provide the source code on demand. But they're certainly violating the spirit.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2