SoylentNews

Linux Kernel Patch Maker Says Court Case Was Only Way Out

posted by Fnord666 on Sunday February 16 2020, @02:22PM   
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

• Re:Status of GRsecurity?Re:Status of GRsecurity? (Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday February 18 2020, @03:26PM (2 children)

  by Immerman (3985) on Tuesday February 18 2020, @03:26PM (#959539)

  Where does it say you can't add any further terms to the transaction? It says you can't add any further *restrictions* to the

  [Section] 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

  So long as I provide you the full source under GPL2, then I'm putting no further restrictions on you redistributing it as you see fit. Threatening to refuse to do any further business with you if you exercise those rights, doesn't actually restrict your rights - it just restricts your future business dealings with me. You're perfectly free to flip me off and redistribute the source I gave you.

  I don't see that section 4 is directly relevant, until we establish that I have indeed violated section 6.

  Parent

  Starting Score:	1		point
  Karma-Bonus Modifier		+1
  Total Score:		2

• Re:Status of GRsecurity?Re:Status of GRsecurity? (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 19 2020, @02:42AM (1 child)

  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 19 2020, @02:42AM (#959757)

  >Where does it say you can't add any further terms to the transaction? It says you can't add any further *restrictions* to the

  > 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void,

  Grsecurity is a modification of the Program. They are modifying the Program, and sublicensing it, with added terms. They are in violation.

  Additionally, A consequence, aswell as A negative covenant, is a restriction.

  >You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

  They are violating the license on two counts, not just one count.

  Parent

  • Re:Status of GRsecurity?(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday February 19 2020, @03:55AM

    by Immerman (3985) on Wednesday February 19 2020, @03:55AM (#959781)

    Their argument is that there are no added terms. The patch is provided under the GPL2, which means you can redistribute it freely.

    You won't be able to business with them anymore if you do, but that doesn't limit your ability to redistribute in any way.

    Parent