Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

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This discussion has been archived.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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @09:08PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @09:08PM (#959287)

    "You are not allowed to add additional terms between you and the down-stream distributees that impinge on the permissions granted by the Copyright holder."

    and they're not. the downstream distributees can distribute to their hearts content, but OSS doesn't have to deal with them anymore.

    and no, i'm not a fucking shitweasel.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 17 2020, @10:51PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 17 2020, @10:51PM (#959340) Journal

    but OSS doesn't have to deal with them anymore.

    Sorry, according to the GPL license, they do. I find it interesting how this conversation goes. The Perens side quotes the relevant clauses which OSS is in violation of and explains how those are violations. The OSS side just has vague feelings that certain restrictions aren't really restrictions. Nothing is ever justified except with bizarre non sequiturs (like claiming this is equivalent to forcing OSS to distribute code to everyone forever). One side uses reason. The other side does not.

    By your tools of reason, you shall be known.