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: 1) by khallow on Monday February 17 2020, @09:53PM (4 children)
Except of course, they cut off the supply if they catch you doing it. Which is a limit, contrary to assertion.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday February 17 2020, @10:09PM (3 children)
It is a limit, but it's NOT a limit on your rights under the GPL - just on your future business dealing with them, which aren't covered by the GPL
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 17 2020, @10:37PM
But it is a limit on OSS's rights under the GPL.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 18 2020, @07:02AM (1 child)
>It is a limit, but it's NOT a limit on your rights under the GPL - just on your future business dealing with them, which aren't covered by the GPL
OSS is not allowed to proffer /any/, A_N_Y, additional terms OTHER than the GPL when distributing a derivative work of a GPL'd work. They are NOT allowed to make ANY "contract": they can ___ONLY___ give the terms of the GPL: that is IT.
They have put forth the GPL AND additional terms. That is FORBIDDEN by the linux copyright holders under section 6 and 4 of the GPL.
They do NOT have a license for linux kernel ANYMORE. That's RIGHT NOW.
Get it through your FUCKING head you MORON.
Linux Kernel is NOT their property. The Linux Kernel devs HAVE __BANNED__ certain business practices, regarding their Work. This is ONE of those banned practices.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday February 18 2020, @03:29PM
>OSS is not allowed to proffer /any/, A_N_Y, additional terms OTHER than the GPL when distributing a derivative work of a GPL'd work.
And they are not doing so - they're providing the source to their derivative patches under the GPL2.