[DNG] Yes you have standing to sue GRSecurity.
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 ) ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] MikeeUSA warning (Re: Yes you have standing to sue GRSecurity.)
First of all, give some proof of your accusation. Second of all, prove the relevance of such. Third of all: identity politics is off-topic in a discussion on copyright. Is it not you, thus, who is trolling and attempting to derail the conversation? On 2017-07-29 16:52, Adam Borowski wrote: This is obvious, but to save us a yet another troll thread: it's another of MikeeUSA's sockpuppet accounts. Meow! ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
[DNG] Yes I am an attorney. - Re: Identity of OP (Software written by contractors and the 'work for hire') concept
Yes I am a licensed attorney. No I am not going to give you my registration number nor am I going to show you my bar card. I'm sure you will keep on libeling me... All my legal analysis has been correct however, you might ponder why that is so... Rick Moen and Adam Borowski: I am a licensed attorney. My legal analysis of the GRSecurity situation is correct. I am telling you to cease libeling me by spreading false rumors. You seem to think because it is your belief that I oppose you on some un-related social issue that it is just *impossible* for me to have passed an exam at some point. Others think it impossible, for a similar reason, for me to be a programmer, or a 3d video-game level architect, or a texture artist, or a pixel artist, hobby musician, etc etc. They are wrong, so are you. I am all these things. From programmer, to artist, to attorney. (in response to:) Author: Rick Moen Date: 2017-07-29 19:43 UTC To: dng Subject: Re: [DNG] Software written by contractors and the 'work for hire' concept Quoting Adam Borowski (kilobyte@???): [falsely claiming to be an attorney:]> Isn't this illegal in the US? A false statement that one is an attorney isn't (as far as I know). Giving legal advice without being a licensed attorney in the applicable jurisdiction is, that being a violation of one's state Unauthorized[1] Practice of Law statute. There's an important fine point, though, about what is and isn't giving legal advice. To be in violation, one must be performing acts reserved to attorneys in consultation with clients or prospective clients about their specific legal situations. (Discussing this matter further would veer too far off-topic, IMO, so I'm keeping it short. Please talk to me offlist if you wish.) [1] I'd normally write 'unauthorised', but it's a proper noun. ;-> http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/misc.html#english ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Yes you have standing to sue GRSecurity - Two options that can be used in concert or separately.
Thank you Mr. Rankin for saying this. Bruce Perens blocked me* (also calling me a "fool" later to a 3rd party) after I started to brainstorm the defenses that would be raised about a week or two ago: letting everyone in the world know what he thought of me for mentioning laches etc. Such talk is naivete to him and he "doesn't suffer fools willingly". Brainstorming what defenses the opposition will raise is the thinking of a naive fool according to Bruce Perens. I also noticed that Bruce Perens friend Professor Moglen hasn't commented, instead opting to sit and silently judge, but I did bring up the fact that GPL v2 lacks a no-revocation clause, thus (barring estopple) said license can be revoked at any time by the grantor. Which is the actual reason v3 of the GPL needed to be drafted (the patents issue being a foil). I guess Professor Moglen (RMS, ESR) and the rest don't want too many people to know about that part either and thus would rather downplay anything else I have written. To be clear: Rights-Holders can sue GRSecurity for the copyright violation stemming from the flagrant violation of section 6 of the license. Rights-Holders can also revoke GRSecurity's license to their code by notice and then sue them if they continue to make derivative works of said work. So Rights-Holders have two options there at their disposal. The GPL v2, by itself, does not give rise to an estopple situation where there has been no communication to the other party that they relied upon that the license would never be revoked by Rights-Holder. The permission flows from the Rights-Holder and not through intermediaries. Thus even if Linus made communications that HE would never revoke the permission he has given regarding his works of authorship, that does not bind other Rights-Holders regarding their code. *( lists.debian.org/debian-user/2017/07/msg00830.html ) On 2017-07-30 07:14, David C. Rankin wrote: On 07/30/2017 12:55 AM, David Lang wrote: You are thinking of Trademarks, they must be defended or you loose them. Contracts and Licenses do not need to be defended at every chance or risk loosing them. No, not always, it can apply in plain contract as well. The defenses that could be later raised by grsecurity if this issue goes unaddressed is are (1) latches; and (2) waiver. It is a slippery slope. While, without commenting on the dubious nature of the current use of the defenses (as catch-all, kitchen-sink affirmative-defenses), they can be expected to be raised if rights under GPL to insure no further restrictions are placed on subsequent use of the kernel-code are not enforced. I hope there is a centralized forum that will be established for this issue (there may be and I'm just not smart enough to have found it yet). Certainly, if for nothing else, so the advantages and disadvantages of both action, and inaction, can be peer-reviewed on both the legal and technical side. ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
