Yes you have standing to sue GRSecurity.

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Yes you have standing to sue GRSecurity.

nisus
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 )
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Yes you have standing to sue GRSecurity.

David C. Rankin
On 07/29/2017 07:53 AM, [hidden email] 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.

--
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Yes you have standing to sue GRSecurity.

nisus
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, [hidden email] 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.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Yes you have standing to sue GRSecurity.

Ralf Mardorf-4
On Sun, 30 Jul 2017 10:35:18 +0000, [hidden email] 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".
>
>https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2017/07/msg00830.html

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.
Loading...