Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Sunday February 16 2020, @02:22PM   Printer-friendly
from the no-way-out dept.

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

 
This discussion has been archived.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 gtomorrow on Sunday February 16 2020, @08:44PM (3 children)

    by gtomorrow (2230) on Sunday February 16 2020, @08:44PM (#958883)

    As Arik said repeatedly, it's you that doesn't understand. In this case, you aren't waiving your rights. You are perfectly free not to enforce your rights but you are never at any moment irrevocably surrendering anything. In this case you may and can change your mind at any time regarding said rights. Specifically, under GPL, you can at any time request the source code and no one can legally tell you to, as you so eloquently put it, "pound sand".

    Geez...sometimes, Barbara, you are exhausting.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 16 2020, @09:48PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 16 2020, @09:48PM (#958899)

    Geez...sometimes, Barbara, you are exhausting.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @05:50AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @05:50AM (#959046)

    And nothing can stop that company from doing its duty under the GPL and giving you that - and then terminating your relationship for future releases.

    Which is what's happening here.

    Which is why it's legal.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @12:12PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @12:12PM (#959121)

      It is not legal.
      GRSecurity is forbidden from offering any additionally restrictive terms between it and the distributees of the derivative work.
      See section 6 and section 4 of the GPL (version 2).

      The copyright owners of the linux kernel (and of GCC, GRSecurity also makes GCC plugins, which are believed to be non-seperable derivative works aswell) have explicitly forbidden any additional restrictive terms between the licensee and the down-the-line distributee.

      It IS illegal. Criminally too since Spengler et al have made over 1000 dollars from the direct copyright infringement.