SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/08/03/linux_kernel_grsecurity_sues_bruce_perens_for_defamation/
In late June, noted open-source programmer Bruce Perens warned that using Grsecurity's Linux kernel security could invite legal trouble.
"As a customer, it's my opinion that you would be subject to both contributory infringement and breach of contract by employing this product in conjunction with the Linux kernel under the no-redistribution policy currently employed by Grsecurity," Perens wrote on his blog.
The following month, Perens was invited to court. Grsecurity sued the open-source doyen, his web host, and as-yet-unidentified defendants who may have helped him draft that post, for defamation and business interference.
Grsecurity offers Linux kernel security patches on a paid-for subscription basis. The software hardens kernel defenses through checks for common errors like memory overflows. Perens, meanwhile, is known for using the Debian Free Software Guidelines to draft the Open Source Definition, with the help of others.
Linus Torvalds, who oversees the Linux kernel, has called Grsecurity's patches "garbage".
... (read the rest at the register)
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Sunday August 06 2017, @01:57PM (2 children)
Not really - they could always settle for the usual copyright-infringement penalties as demonstrated by the RIAA and friends: ridiculous fines and potential jail time for each infringement, and a permanent injunction against any further distribution of any derived works.
What the GPL actually does is give infringers an "easy out" by getting into compliance with the terms of the only license that would allow them to have legally redistributed the work in the first place. Definitely not their first choice, but when they've been caught red-handed engaging in illegal activity with extremely steep mandatory penalties, settling for just sharing the work they've done no doubt starts looking really good. Especially when they realize that part of paying the fines is also to essentially throw away all their work because distributing it again would then unquestionably be willful infringement, with even worse penalties.
And actually, I don't believe it's even the GPL that does that so much as a community that's consistently been willing to "forgive and forget" once they get into compliance - pretty sure that legally getting into compliance only indemnifies their future activities, their past ones are still flat-out copyright infringement.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Monday August 07 2017, @02:30AM (1 child)
They could pay the enormous penalties, and release their software with new code that replaces the GPL part of their product. Still costly. but it doesn't involve giving away their work.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday August 08 2017, @03:05PM
Yes, they could. But in most cases the GPLed portion vastly outweighs their own contribution, so it's not very likely. The fact that so few companies choose to go that route when caught should suggest something about its relative appeal.