Linux Kernel Hardeners Grsecurity Sue Open Source's Bruce Perens (theregister.co.uk)

An anonymous reader shares a report from The Register: In late June, noted open-source programmer Bruce Perens [a longtime Slashdot reader] 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.

Grsecurity used to allow others to redistribute its patches, but the biz ended that practice for stable releases two years ago and for test patches in April this year. It offers its GPLv2 licensed software through a subscription agreement. The agreement says that customers who redistribute the code -- a right under the GPLv2 license -- will no longer be customers and will lose the right to distribute subsequent versions of the software. According to Perens, "GPL version 2 section 6 explicitly prohibits the addition of terms such as this redistribution prohibition." A legal complaint (PDF) filed on behalf of Grsecurity in San Francisco, California, insists the company's software complies with the GPLv2. Grsecurity's agreement, the lawsuit states, only applies to future patches, which have yet to be developed. Perens isn't arguing that the GPLv2 applies to unreleased software. Rather, he asserts the GPLv2, under section 6, specifically forbids the addition of contractual terms.

Comments

Prove it's true

[Anonymous Coward]

That would put a full stop to Gr's suit.
But besides that, it's pretty clear this is an intimidation move because it would be relatively trivial to just show you're not doing it.

Re:Prove it's true

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, suing the god damned web hoster as well is a sure sign they want to discourage this kind of talk in future.

Re: Prove it's true

[SLi]

How would it be trivial to show? They assert what they do is legal; Bruce asserts it is not. It's mostly a dispute of law, not of facts.

Re:Prove it's true

[Anonymous Coward]

This demand proves Perens' point about dealing with Grsecurity stuff inviting legal trouble.

Either way from GPL violations or from a litigious company like this case.

Re:Prove it's true

[FooAtWFU]

Proving it's true would not put a full stop to the suit; it would be a thing that you prove in the suit itself. This is expensive because it means you're paying lawyers lots of money. The thing that's supposed to put a full stop to the suit is an anti-SLAPP motion, because this appears to be a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation; among other things, this typically stays all discovery, saving much expense,

Unfortunately I'm not up to speed on California-specific anti-SLAPP statutes.

Re: Prove it's true

[guruevi]

Even so, regardless of the facts on the matter, Bruce is entitled to his opinion, even if he ends up being wrong. GRSecurity just shot themselves again in the other foot with this.

Re:Prove it's true

[gnasher719]

Proving it's true would not put a full stop to the suit; it would be a thing that you prove in the suit itself. This is expensive because it means you're paying lawyers lots of money.

Bruce Perens' councel is Heather Meeker of Oâ(TM)Melveny and Meyers, author of a book about use of Open Source software in the enterprise. I wouldn't be surprised if she gives him a good deal for representation in court if needed. (I thought Bruce Perens is a lawyer as well, but probably respects the old saying "a man who represents himself in court has a fool for a lawyer and a fool for a client").

What he said is "It is my strong opinion..." which I think stops what he says from being libel. GrSecurity could have replied "It is our strong opinion that Bruce Perens is incompetent and has no idea what he is talking about", which would probably not be libel for the same reason, being an opinion and not declared to be fact. Suing him has no chance of winning, and the huge risk that a court might agree that Bruce Perens' opinion is actually correct. That's most likely something that he would argue, in addition to the 100% winner argument "I said it was just my opinion".

Re:Prove it's true

[jenningsthecat]

Bruce Perens' councel is Heather Meeker of Oâ(TM)Melveny and Meyers...

I suspect Perens and Ms Meeker will also have some assistance from the EFF. The potential chilling effects of this suit, and its blatant misuse of judicial process, are too important for the EFF to remain on the sidelines for long.

Stupid lawsuit, but useful

[bradley13]

This is a stupid lawsuit. According to the attorneys for the plaintiff company:

"Mr Perens has made false statements, claiming them to be facts, and based on those statements employed fear-mongering tactics to intentionally hurt Open Source Security Inc's business."

Perens actually wrote: "it's my opinion that..."

Opinion, not assertion of fact. This lawsuit will be thrown out almost immediately. However, it is useful in helping the community identify a company that we should never do business with. So thanks for that, at least...

Re:Stupid lawsuit, but useful

[drinkypoo]

if Bruce wins then it gives the impression that open source is a cancer that prevents you from charging for your work.

If companies can't tell the difference between not being able to charge for code and not being able to charge for work then we don't need them

Re: Stupid lawsuit, but useful

[guruevi]

It's infringement from the GPLv2 point to even add those terms. They are adding terms to the GPLv2 license by modifying the code, and distributing the code with those new terms, that's breach of contract from GRSecurity's contract with the Linux community.

The GPLv2 explicitly tells you you cannot change the terms:
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.

Why their patches were not integrated...

[Anonymous Coward]

If anyone was still wondering why their patches never made it in the kernel...
It shows a lot about their attitude and delusions, there are good reasons not to want code from people not able to objectively judge their own work, especially when they are asses on top...

It is that clear cut

[Anonymous Coward]

If version A says you can't distribute this without losing rights to version B, then either

you just get version B and then distribute THAT and "lose rights" to distribute version C and so on and so on

OR

you lose rights to GET version B because of a violation of a term on the same GPL software (version A) which is either illegal to do because

a) a license for B can't be contingent on a license for another bit of software, copyright does not give you that right at all
b) the license addition is to both A and B, therefore explicitly against the clause Bruce mentioned, hence GRSecurity has no license for their code and are "pirates"