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: 3, Informative) by lentilla on Sunday February 16 2020, @10:19PM (2 children)
Perhaps this might be an easier way to visualise...
It's not the binding of a third party that is the issue - it's the second party that is bound.
So; for example; Linus et al (the first party) provide Linux. The second party (Spengler) adds some goodies, and provides that to a third party (the "customer"). But in doing so, the second party automatically has their licence to redistribute the software revoked (per paragraphs 6 and 4 as mentioned above). This happens even if the third party would otherwise agree.
You mentioned above "I might acquire a mint condition never unsealed collectors edition of a book from someone on the condition that I keep it in it's pristine unread state". Fair enough. Imagine Mr de Vinci lends an artwork to a gallery on the condition that it not be altered. The gallery; being somewhat strapped for cash; paints a moustache on the Mona Lisa and sells it to a collector to place in his den next to the picture of Dogs Playing Poker Wearing Tutus. Understandably, Mr de Vinci (the first party) is aggrieved that the second party (the gallery) has done this. The conditions that bind the second party don't get unwound - no matter how much a third party (the collector) might want an adulterated painting.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Sunday February 16 2020, @11:29PM (1 child)
As for the museum, they are on the hook.
This is not the same as someone distributing Linux and then refusing to supply sources for their changes. The easy way out is to say "okay, I'm not giving you the source so your software is now unlicensed - delete it." And then when they bitch, show them the standard warranty text that came with the distribution- no warranty whatsoever, which includes o warranty that it's licensed.
So delete the patches you received and we're both back in compliance.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @06:23AM
I hope this will be tested in court. Could you imagine the fallout if this was a proven successful defense?