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 Wednesday February 19 2020, @02:58AM
>Grsec is adding additional terms to the support contract. Not to the program or the GPL license.
That simply does not matter. The GPL forbids ANY additional terms between the licensee and down-the-line distributees, obviously where there is a nexuis between the protected Work, and the contract.
You seem to misunderstand what a copyright license is. It is permission to use the protected Work, from the Copyright owners. (In this case it isn't a contract: you didn't pay any bargained for consideration to receive the permissions: they were just granted for nothing)
Here the Copyright Owner has stipulated that if YOU the licensee proffer ANY additional restrictions (section 6) OR modify or distribute the Program except as EXPRESSLY provided under this License (section 4); your loicense is revoked at that moment.
Adding a "you may not redistribute the derivative work of the Program, and if you do we will assay penalties upon you (no refund etc)" is NOT "distribut(ing) the Program as expressly provided under this License.
It is, infact, distributing (and modifying) the Program under terms that are NOT under the Express terms of the license.
Yes GRSecurity is in violation.
And perhaps (you?) Rohibit Chabara is an accessory to that scheme (contributory or vicarious copyright infringement)