It has come to my attention that some entities are claiming that you, dear Linux Hackers, (1)need to go through some foundation or get some permission from upon high in-order to sue the progenitors of GRSecurity for their violation of section 6 of the terms underwhich the linux kernel is distributed (version 2 of the GPL). And, furthermore, that (2)this foundation has no intention of bringing such a suit.
(1) is false. (2) may very well be true.
You do have standing to sue GRSecurity for their blatant continuing copyright violation if GRSecurity has made a derivative work of your code contribution to the Linux Kernel as-long as (a)you have not assigned your copyrights, and (b)you are not a work-for-hire.
How do you know if you are a work for hire or if you have signed away your copyrights? If you are working for a company and as your job duties you are programming the linux kernel, there is a good chance that you are a work for hire and thus the company owns said copyrights.
How do you know if you signed away your copyrights? Well if you singed a document transferring ownership of your copyrights for the code you produced at some point.
If you are not working for a company while hacking linux and you haven't assigned your copyrights away then YOU OWN YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS.
This means most of you hobby hackers, if GRSecurity has modified your code, YES YOU HAVE STANDING TO SUE.
Yes your "betters" are lying to you. You have individual separate standing to sue.
Yes you SHOULD consult a lawyer of your own. Yes you SHOULD consider a joint filing with other individual rights-holders willing to bring suit against GRSecurity for their blatant violation of your terms, and yes you should consider starting CLASS ACTION since the number of Linux Kernel Contributors seemingly numbers in the multitudes upon multitudes upon multitudes.
And yes, I am an attorney. But no, I'm not looking for clients. Just correcting some false information that has been spreading.
And yes, GRSecurity will try to claim that the linux-kernel is a work of Joint ownership (so as to shield themselves via procedural law) and yes they will try to claim fair use (probably de minimus), and yes your Lawyer will have to respond to these claims. The Joint ownership claim will go down quickly but it will have to be responded to. De minimus Fair Use depends on how much code is modified and how signifigant the modifications are. Don't let anyone but your own legal council dissuade you from bringing suit: Remember the statute of limitations is only a few years, so the clock is ticking on the CURRENT violation.
Also make sure you register your copyright of the version of the linux-kernel that GRSecurity is using in its violation prior to bringing suit. The registration must be for the specific version. Yes you can register after the violation has occurred, however if you have registered before the violation then you can also pursue recovery of legal fees, pursue statutory damages, etc.
( NOTE: If you would like to read on how your copyright is being violated by GRSecurity, Bruce Perens posted a good write-up on his web-page ) ( perens.com/blog/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributory-infringement-risk-for-customers/ ) ( There was also a discussion on the linux section of slashdot, and on the debian user mailing list, and on the dng devuan mailing list and on the openwall mailing list and the fedora legal mailing list )
On 07/29/2017 07:53 AM, nisus@redchan.it wrote:
( NOTE: If you would like to read on how your copyright is being violated by GRSecurity, Bruce Perens posted a good write-up on his web-page ) ( perens.com/blog/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributory-infringement-risk-for-customers/ ) ( There was also a discussion on the linux section of slashdot, and on the debian user mailing list, and on the dng devuan mailing list and on the openwall mailing list and the fedora legal mailing list )
Paul Allen's concerns on LKML that if the GPL rights are not asserted, then any future, or additional violations, by grsecurity could raise the defenses of waiver or latches against future actions based upon a failure to assert GPL rights here (while dubious, they become additional hurdles that must be responded to and overcome, regardless of their merit). Thread: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/7/29/128
If you are a contributor, it makes sense to get in contact with others similarly situated, and make sure you understand the competing issues, the statute of limitations that apply, and the upside/downside to acting or failing to act. No, I'm not looking for clients either, but will explore the issue and contribute to the extent needed. I've followed the earlier grsecurity threads on this list out of curiosity that something like this may unfold.
Thank you. When earlier I brought up latches when I started brainstorming the defenses GRSecurity might raise, Bruce Perens quickly dismissed me as a "fool".
https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2017/07/msg00830.html
OK, I apologize to all who were involved in this conversation. I will block further emails from "aconcernedfossdev" and no longer encourage him.
Bruce
(Later after a third party's inquiry, Bruce made this admission:)
The statement about Grsecurity still stands. Aconcernedfossdev was wasting my time with naive argument and I don't have to suffer fools gladly.
Thanks
Bruce
He also conflated my mentioning of the sometimes ongoing jailing of those found by the court to be in contempt for non-payment of civil debts to which the court feels the defendant has funds to pay and is simply holding out as me "conflating" criminal law with civil law.... and would not accept my answer as valid at all. I'm just a "fool".
I'm glad someone else recognizes the importance of recognizing the existence of potential procedural hurdles... and equitable defenses...
It angers me muchly that Bruce decided to libel me in this area simply because I started trying to anticipate the other side's moves once everyone understood that a cause of action existed.
On 2017-07-30 00:21, David C. Rankin wrote:
On 07/29/2017 07:53 AM, nisus@redchan.it wrote:
( NOTE: If you would like to read on how your copyright is being violated by GRSecurity, Bruce Perens posted a good write-up on his web-page ) ( perens.com/blog/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributory-infringement-risk-for-customers/ ) ( There was also a discussion on the linux section of slashdot, and on the debian user mailing list, and on the dng devuan mailing list and on the openwall mailing list and the fedora legal mailing list )
Paul Allen's concerns on LKML that if the GPL rights are not asserted, then any future, or additional violations, by grsecurity could raise the defenses of waiver or latches against future actions based upon a failure to assert GPL rights here (while dubious, they become additional hurdles that must be responded to and overcome, regardless of their merit). Thread: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/7/29/128
If you are a contributor, it makes sense to get in contact with others similarly situated, and make sure you understand the competing issues, the statute of limitations that apply, and the upside/downside to acting or failing to act. No, I'm not looking for clients either, but will explore the issue and contribute to the extent needed. I've followed the earlier grsecurity threads on this list out of curiosity that something like this may unfold.
On Sun, 30 Jul 2017 10:35:18 +0000, nisus@redchan.it wrote:
Thank you. When earlier I brought up latches when I started brainstorming the defenses GRSecurity might raise, Bruce Perens quickly dismissed me as a "fool".
Are you serious?
I hoped that on this mailing list nobody would feed you, so I only replied to Ubuntu Users, after you already got a reply from someone on behalf of the moderation team.
I'll repeat what I already told you at Ubuntu Users. Don't spam any mailing list with this repeated idiocy, but do what already was suggested. If you think that somebody should take legal steps, you are free to take legal steps.
arch-general@lists.archlinux.org