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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @11:08AM (4 children)
Under RMS' interpretation of how GCC plugins legally interact with GCC;
The FSF would have standing to sue Bradly Spengler, and Mathias Krause in their personal capacity for direct copyright infringement due to the work they do on their GCC plugins if they are subject to the GRSecurity "Access agreement" including the no-redistribution (or else) negative covenant (the additional restriction).
In addition to suits against the Company (OpenSourceSecurity), aswell as the anonomyous employee/programmer "PaX Team".
Anyone who knowingly distributes products using these infringing derivative works could also be sued for Contributory Copyright Infringement.
One could also take a legal swing at their lawyer, Rohit Chhabra, perhaps as-well, for materially promoting the infringing scheme.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @10:11PM (3 children)
Somewhat ironically, if the court did ever come down on the side of FSF, Perens, GNU, etc. and they tried to go after the Mr. Chhabra, there is a good chance he would use the very same opinion privilege defense to protect his wrong claims as Perens is using here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 18 2020, @06:53AM (2 children)
Chhabra's assistance, if it is contributory, is likely of a material nature, rather than mere opinion, no?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 18 2020, @10:15PM (1 child)
He is acting as an attorney, which means that he complies with the law as long as he doesn't advise his client to or knowingly assist his client in breaking the law. Note also that he is assumed to be a lawyer of "reasonable prudence and competence," which is a higher burden the Perens, and imputes certain knowledge and interpretive skill on him.
If anyone came after Chhabra, his out is to say, "I'm not liable because I was acting based on a reasonable legal opinion at the time. Because it was a legal question not decided by the courts, I didn't know for a fact that it was false nor would have more care revealed it to be false based the law as it existed at the time and because all the facts available to me to make the determination were publicly known to be true."
Sounds an awful lot like Perens's defense of, "I'm not liable because I was acting based on a reasonable legal opinion at the time. Because it was a legal question not decided by the courts, I didn't know for a fact that it was false nor would have more care revealed it to be false based the law as it existed at the time and because all the facts available to me to make the determination were publicly known to be true."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 21 2020, @05:11AM
Chhabra should be sued for contributory copyright infringement. There is nothing reasonable about his beliefs. His scheme is in direct violation of the express terms of the copyright license.