EFF Defends Bruce Perens Victory Against 'Open Source Security' in Appeals Court 30
Bruce Perens (Slashdot reader #3872) co-founded the Open Source Initiative with Eric Raymond in 1998. (And then left it this January 2nd.)
But in 2017 Perens was also sued partly over comments made in a Slashdot discussion. He's just shared a video from the 9th Circuit Appeals Court hearing -- along with this update: Open Source Security Inc. and their CEO, Mr. Bradley Spengler, sued me for 3 Million dollars for defamation, because I wrote this blog post, in which I explained why I thought they were in violation of the GPL. They lost in the lower court, and had to file this $300,000 bond to pay for my defense, which will be awarded to my attorneys if the appeals court upholds the lower court's finding.
Because OSS/Spengler are in Pensylvania and I am in California, this was tried before a Magistrate in Federal court, with the laws of California and the evidentiary rules of the Federal Court. Thus, I am now in the 9th Circuit for appeal.
The first attorney to appear is for OSS/Spengler. The second works for EFF, and the third for O'Melveny. In my opinion EFF and O'Melveny did a great job.
If you are interested in the case, I have a partial archive of the case documents from PACER, and a link to PACER where the rest can be found, here.
But in 2017 Perens was also sued partly over comments made in a Slashdot discussion. He's just shared a video from the 9th Circuit Appeals Court hearing -- along with this update: Open Source Security Inc. and their CEO, Mr. Bradley Spengler, sued me for 3 Million dollars for defamation, because I wrote this blog post, in which I explained why I thought they were in violation of the GPL. They lost in the lower court, and had to file this $300,000 bond to pay for my defense, which will be awarded to my attorneys if the appeals court upholds the lower court's finding.
Because OSS/Spengler are in Pensylvania and I am in California, this was tried before a Magistrate in Federal court, with the laws of California and the evidentiary rules of the Federal Court. Thus, I am now in the 9th Circuit for appeal.
The first attorney to appear is for OSS/Spengler. The second works for EFF, and the third for O'Melveny. In my opinion EFF and O'Melveny did a great job.
If you are interested in the case, I have a partial archive of the case documents from PACER, and a link to PACER where the rest can be found, here.
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope Bruce beats their asses in court over and over and counter sues them for being the monumental pricks they are. GRSecurity is/was/will always be a scam.
Re: (Score:3)
Hope Bruce takes their ass-ets in court !!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope Bruce beats their asses in court over and over and counter sues them for being the monumental pricks they are. GRSecurity is/was/will always be a scam.
It's a shame that there aren't more people as principled as the proponents of open source. Open source software is one of the few bright spots in an apparently dark future.
Re:Good (Score:4, Informative)
You mean the people at the OSI who claim to have invented the term "Open Source" and who deliberately conflate open source with Free Software so as to inflate their own importance when it has been shown conclusively that they did not invent it and that the two are not interchangeable? I prefer people to be more principled than that.
https://hyperlogos.org/blog/dr... [hyperlogos.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Me, I tend to support the Free Software side of things more. But it's disingenuous to imply that Free Software and Open Source don't have an overwhelming overlap.
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck to anyone that wants to find commercial quality software that is Free, Open Source, and Without a License, because that "without a license" part does NOT include Linux.
Re: (Score:3)
Overlap? Yes. Overwhelming? Totally false. They are fundamentally different things, even though they have a lot in common.
Re: (Score:2)
Public service. You can't have GPL drama without actors and you can't have Slashdot without GPL drama.
Re: (Score:2)
Er.. I don't think so :)
Bruce Perens has done many great things for Linux and the open-source movement, and he should be commended for all he's done - and keeps on doing.
As such, he's done a thousand good things a thousand times better than I'll ever do. However, I'd rather be silly ole insignificant me than have his gigantic unsufferable ego.
Re:Yawn (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing intrinsically wrong with a sizable ego. I know quite a few with such, and they're great characters ("larger than life" is the usual description).
And very few are actually insignificant. We're all cogs in a very intriguing machine; some have wider press than others, but few can do what they do without a mountain of people supporting their endeavours (you eat, so you rely on hundreds of people to grow, transport, clean, present and sell you that food in a place that relies on sales staff, management
Details of the court findings? (Score:2)
Did the court say anything about whether Grsecurity violates the GPL? Or did they only determine that Bruce's opinion that they do is not defamation?
I had a quick look at the links, but all I saw was legal procedures.
Re:Details of the court findings? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Details of the court findings? (Score:5, Interesting)
If his statements are factual, then it's not defamation in the US.
Linux has a license, and if that company is doing what was said, they are in violation of the license, so that would then be a fact.
As to the customers potentially being liable, well that's something that I have seen happen with cases where a companies customers have been sued for violations even though the violation was due to the company that sold it to them, so that's possible as well, and thus a fact.
Looks pretty clear. The only thing that seems likely to muddy it up is incompetent lawyers, or throwing lawyers at the defendant until he can no longer defend himself.
From what I hear though, the accussor having to put up that bond means the judge already things the defender is pretty much going to win.
ianal. I could just be talking out my backside, but I have listened to a fair amount of lawyers talking on these types of things, so I at least know a few basic things to look out for. One of those I catch fairly often is Leonard French on youtube. His channel is Lawful Masses. He's a copyright lawyer, and also a gamer, so he often covers things in those arenas, but sometimes he talks about other legal matters, and even has other lawyers on for some subjects.
Sorry this sounds like a plug for him, and maybe it's a half hearted one, but it's mostly pointing out that there are more palatable sources of actual case discussions and relevant law out there than just sitting in a court room or actually hiring a lawyer. (Just to be clear in case anyone doesn't get it, but these things aren't legal advice.)
Re: (Score:1)
Hey, thanks for the shoutout. I'll see about covering this on the channel.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a defamation case. So, there will be findings about defamation, not about copyright.
and for defamation to be successful, there has to be a "false statement". did you happen, by any chance, with your maaany decades of experience in licensing and free software, make even the teeeniest slightest mistake, in any statement, that could be deemed "false"? mm?
Re: Details of the court findings? (Score:2)
"Future services" not gauranteed in gpl (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Paying defendant attorney fees in a lost defamation case is a technicality? You'd think that would be one of the main aims of anti-SLAPP laws.
I miss Groklaw. (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it bad (Score:2)
That a secondary takeaway I got from this was "I have a lower uid then Bruce!"? Lol
Re: (Score:2)
You damn four-digit people are always bragging about that shit...
Re: (Score:2)
You four digit dudes had your day. Now it's time for us 5-digiters to rule the Slashverse.
Does California have an anti-SLAPP statute? (Score:3)