/tech/ - Technology

Brought to you by archive.org

Posting mode: Reply

Check to confirm you're not a robot
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Password
Drawing x size canvas
File(s)

Remember to follow the rules

Max file size: 350.00 MB

Max files: 5

Max message length: 4096

Manage Board | Moderate Thread

Return | Catalog | Bottom

Expand All Images


Suddenly Bruce Perens doesn't want to talk to me. Anonymous 07/15/2017 (Sat) 06:38:30 [Preview] No. 10386
Suddenly Bruce Perens doesn't want to talk to me.

What happened? This was out of the blue:

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


Anonymous 07/15/2017 (Sat) 06:41:31 [Preview] No. 10387 del
Tell me what's going on.

This was from a discussion on the GRSecurity situation.


Anonymous 07/15/2017 (Sat) 07:46:47 [Preview] No. 10388 del
(58.71 KB 1280x800 anime1493847407959.jpg)
My response:

>OK, I apologize to all who were involved in this conversation. I will block further emails from "aconcernedfossdev" and no longer encourage him.
>
> Bruce

For what reason? Has some libel been spread about me? Who are you saying OK to? It seems that you are putting me in a false negative light now for what reason is there for blocking me? I have not been combative towards you and have simply explained the law as I see it regarding this situation, as-well as anticipating possible defenses that will have to be argued against.

I don't see why, for that, one would block me.
So there must be some libelous statement made by someone else that you are responding to. I wonder what was said...

Anyway, yes I am a licensed attorney. Yes I have answered the questions and ideas raised as best as I can, and yes I have informed those in this discussion, as-well as those reading it, as to the dangers of failing to bring a case within a reasonable amount of time once a cause of action has matured.

I have done my due diligence.

If you do not bring a case within the required time period, at law, you lose the right to seek damages. If you do not bring a case within a reasonable time and sit on your rights then equitable remedies also will be barred by laches.


Anonymous 07/15/2017 (Sat) 07:52:27 [Preview] No. 10389 del
Hey mikee, I wondered if you were going to pursue this, you were very outspoken in that thread on here. Why do you bother with the Debian mailing lists? You should know not to waste your time with them when they refused to package CEA. I think they hate you.


Anonymous 07/15/2017 (Sat) 07:52:45 [Preview] No. 10390 del
Response 2:

Imprisonment for contempt of court is not per-se a criminal matter. It is a situation where one can, at any time, comply with the court's request and regain one's liberty.

Cases involving repeated imprisonment for contempt of court include most often failure to pay a payment in a domestic matter (child support), as-well as increasingly failure to disburse funds in an action related to debt collection. Neither of such cases are matters of criminal law.

Your assertion that I am conflating the two is incorrect.

I gave it as an example to head off the idea that a court would look fondly on a plaintiff that stat on his rights and then attempted to head off a latches defense by claiming he could not afford council. Such is not a legal or physical impairment that a court would likely accept in most jurisdictions.

Why you now block me I do not know.

Give examples of a court in Pennsylvania (where Open Source Security is incorporated and has it's head office) where a latches defense failed because the plaintiff alleged that when he should have commenced an action he was short of funding.


Anonymous 07/15/2017 (Sat) 07:54:21 [Preview] No. 10391 del
>>61383507
> He found out that you were a cis white male

Do you think someone tipped him off that I feel that Hans Reiser did nothing wrong, and that I support the book of Deuteronomy, especially Deuteronomy chapter 22 verse 28-29 (as written in hebrew) and am infavor of men taking young girls as brides (as allowed by the God of the Old Testament) am not a fan of women's rights, etc?

He was listening to me (for over a week), posted this:
https://perens.com/blog/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributory-infringement-risk-for-customers/

after my explanation of the law

which became this slashdot story (in which he comments):

https://linux.slashdot.org/story/17/07/09/188246/bruce-perens-warns-grsecurity-breaches-the-linux-kernels-gpl-license


And then suddenly an hour or two ago, poof,

These are the people that were cc'd
Cc rms@gnu.org, debian-user@lists.debian.org, Eric Raymond, moglen@columbia.eduAdd contact


Which one do you think caused this?

I suspect ESR myself...
Your thoughts?


Do you think he'll now issue a retraction of his article, even though my understanding of the law is correct?


Anonymous 07/15/2017 (Sat) 07:59:52 [Preview] No. 10392 del
(144.92 KB 702x397 anim1497769782220.png)
>>10389
>Hey mikee, I wondered if you were going to pursue this, you were very outspoken in that thread on here. Why do you bother with the Debian mailing lists? You should know not to waste your time with them when they refused to package CEA. I think they hate you.

This was in a conversation directly with Bruce Perens with the debian list, RMS, etc Carbon Copy'd.

(I always do that because even though my emails are blocked within a day, my messages still get through in the > 'd replies and thus the conversation is backed up even if I lose access to the mail.)

He was talking to me for over a week and listening to my legal advice.

This induced him to write this:
https://perens.com/blog/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributory-infringement-risk-for-customers/

Which was then posted to slashdot as:
https://linux.slashdot.org/story/17/07/09/188246/bruce-perens-warns-grsecurity-breaches-the-linux-kernels-gpl-license

I see some of the language from my emails in Bruce's post (maybe we should archive.is it incase whatever caused him to stop talking to me suddenly...)

(Also I was also talking to the free software conservancy, RMS was talking to Bruce also due to my efforts, etc.)


Anonymous 07/15/2017 (Sat) 08:03:58 [Preview] No. 10393 del
>>10392
It's clear someone got to him, my best guess is some feminist from Debian contacted him. Such a shame.


Anonymous 07/15/2017 (Sat) 08:04:58 [Preview] No. 10394 del
https://archive.fo/g9n3g

I also sent him the Stable Patch Access Agreement from GRSecurity as a PDF, which he didn't have before, where they put it in writing:

>"Notwithstanding these rights and obligations, the User acknowledges that redistribution of the provided stable patches or changelogs outside of the explicit obligations under the GPL to User's customers will result in termination of access to future updates of grsecurity stable patches and changelogs."


Which he then used to argue against grsecurity's position in the slashdot comments.

So: I explained the law to everyone that I could.
I explained how GRSecurity is violating the terms of the license grant from Linus and the rest.
I explained surrounding areas of law (verbal agreements, course of business dealing, adding terms that way)... and then it was discovered that GRSecurity put their additional restrictions in writing so I:
Supplied Bruce with that material too.


Anonymous 07/15/2017 (Sat) 08:10:35 [Preview] No. 10396 del
>>10393
>It's clear someone got to him, my best guess is some feminist from Debian contacted him. Such a shame.

I noticed that he was bad mouthing Han's Reiser in the slashdot comments and was saying he was sad Reiser killed Nina after she: had sex with Hans' friend (adultery), divorced Hans (man is ba'al; overlord, woman cannot leave her master), took his house, took his kids, etc.

Hans is absolutely Justified in executing Nina Reiser for this. It says it right there in Deuteronomy, chapter 22. (I'm glad Hans' sticks to his guns and just says "She was a bad infulence": looks like he hasn't abandoned God infavor of pro-women's rights Jesus)

He did nothing wrong. Bruce and other guys are carrying on like he's a terrible murderer (his killing is not a murder as per Deuteronomy, just a justified required slaying)

But even if he disagrees and hates the God of the Old Testament, what does that have to do with my correct interpretation of the law or this GRSecurity situation.

Why is it that these Free Software people put WOMEN first and everything else last?


Anonymous 07/15/2017 (Sat) 08:17:41 [Preview] No. 10397 del
>>10393
>It's clear someone got to him, my best guess is some feminist from Debian contacted him. Such a shame.

I've been googling around seeing if there were any CC's of the other half of the conversation that I didn't get on the net, but I have found nothing.

I would want to know who spoke against me.

These people were on the CC list: rms@gnu.org, debian-user@lists.debian.org, Eric Raymond esr@thyrsus.com , moglen@columbia.edu

Also Matthew garret the kernel programmer mentioned me on twitter recently:

https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/875520112480051200
> Matthew Garrett‏ @mjg59
>Noted misogynist troll MikeeUSA (http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/MikeeUSA ) is now, weirdly, on an anti-grsec tirade - http://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2017/06/15/6

So he perhaps was watching too.


That... debian-user@lists.debian.org adds about 1000 names... :P



I also feel that bruce is now putting my name in a bad light, as if to say I don't know the law with his short, simple:

>OK, I apologize to all who were involved in this conversation. I will block further emails from "aconcernedfossdev" and no longer encourage him.

My interpretation of the law, and my warning's AGAINST delay in bringing an action are not incorrect. Yet lay people will see his text and say "oh mikeeusa doesn't know what he's talking about" thus disparaging my name.


Anonymous 07/15/2017 (Sat) 08:20:53 [Preview] No. 10398 del
>>10393
>It's clear someone got to him, my best guess is some feminist from Debian contacted him. Such a shame.

Could you ask him what the problem is?

His email address is: bruce@perens.com

Since he says he has blocked me he won't get the emails I sent asking what the problem is.


Anonymous 07/15/2017 (Sat) 09:14:58 [Preview] No. 10400 del
Bruce Perens‏ @BrucePerens 4h4 hours ago

@elonmusk It's OK, Elon. Tweets that are just weird are fine. You aren't hiding behind a secret service guard while tweeting abuse at women.


https://twitter.com/search?q=Bruce+Perens

White Knight


Anonymous 07/15/2017 (Sat) 09:31:54 [Preview] No. 10402 del
>>10398
E-mail sent, god only know if I get a reply. Might be better to ask him publicly via twitter.


Anonymous 07/15/2017 (Sat) 09:42:21 [Preview] No. 10403 del
(45.38 KB 499x287 anime1494426304527.jpg)
Pax Team's legal analysis: Red Hat does something similar, thus we're in the clear!

https://twitter.com/kurtseifried/status/885306886622334976

> PaX Team‏ @paxteam Jul 13
>
>where are the broken out kernel patches for RHEL again? oh wait... Red Hat threatens service contract termination if anyone 'leaks' them.

------
GPL v2
Section 6 states simply
"You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."


From GRSecurity's "Stable Patch Agreement":

"Notwithstanding these rights and obligations, the User acknowledges that redistribution of the provided stable patches or changelogs outside of the explicit obligations under the GPL to User's customers will result in termination of access to future updates of grsecurity stable patches and changelogs."

Clear as day. What some lay people do not understand is that the terms in section 6 are governing what agreements and actions the distributee can take regarding furthur distributees, in reality, in the flesh.

Here the ACTIONS of GRSecurity are to RESTRICT the exercise of the redistribution rights of the further distributee.

This is an action prohibited by the terms offered by the linux-rights holders, and they have written as another term that the permission they give to use their property is revoked upon violation of their terms.

Very simple.

(Someone previously said on another thread:)
>And none are imposed. However, you are given the option to agree to them. Clear as day.

The proffering of the additional restrictive terms is in and of itself a violation of section 2. You are holding the clients to an additional restriction and enforcing this restriction via a threat to suspend business relationships.

(YES YOU HAVE IMPOSED AN ADDITIONAL RESTRICTION)


Anonymous 07/15/2017 (Sat) 22:06:17 [Preview] No. 10405 del
Twitter requires a cell phone number and all the SMS-Recieve numbers on the net are allready in use.
I wanted to post a response to PaX Team's argument, could someone perhaps do it for me:


GPLv2 lacks a no-revocation clause. Licenses are revokable at will (barring estopple). Red Hat (or any other rightsholder), for instance, could revoke permission to use it's additions to the linux kernel at any point by whomever it disliked. You would then have to argue in court they are estopped from doing so because you relied on a promise or statement that they made that ran counter to that action.

This is why Red Hat can get away with it's business practices that Pax Team cite: if any other kernel developer sued them they can simply revoke his license to the parts of the Linux Kernel that use Red Hat owned code. This is also why companies like Microsoft contribute to the Linux Kernel: it's like building up a patent portfolio in a way.

Pax and GRSecurity are not in the same position; yet foolishly take similar actions, even actions going beyond what Red Hat does (even if the patches are not "broken out", they still, from Red Hat's side, are provided, furthermore they are integrated into the latest linux kernels: thus the purposes of the other kernel programmers are satiated)


https://twitter.com/kurtseifried/status/885306886622334976

> PaX Team\u200f @paxteam Jul 13
>
>where are the broken out kernel patches for RHEL again? oh wait... Red Hat threatens service contract termination if anyone 'leaks' them.


Anonymous 07/15/2017 (Sat) 22:07:44 [Preview] No. 10406 del
Also wish I could post >>10403 to the discussion on twitter :(


Anonymous 07/15/2017 (Sat) 22:08:09 [Preview] No. 10407 del
>>10402
Thanks for sending that mail.


Anonymous 07/16/2017 (Sun) 05:54:59 [Preview] No. 10409 del
The 4chan /g/ thread's still going;
http://boards.4chan.org/g/thread/61383496#p61385201

If anyone want's to bump it.


Anonymous 07/16/2017 (Sun) 08:38:56 [Preview] No. 10412 del
>>10407
It's a mixed bag on the reply e-mail I'm afraid. It appears his stance on GRSecurity has not changed which is positive, however even though it appears you were an influence on his current stance he no longer values your opinion. He is something of a big cheese so for him to have listened to anyone in the community at all should be a credit to you.


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

On Sat, Jul 15, 2017, 02:30 Anon wrote:

Hello Bruce, I am a long time follower of open source and my interest
was peaked in GRSecurity by a recent Slashdot post.
https://linux.slashdot.org/story/17/07/09/188246/bruce-perens-warns-grsecurity-breaches-the-linux-kernels-gpl-license

With some searching I came across a Debian mailing list and reading an
exchange it culminated in this post:
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."

Was "aconcernedfossdev" a liar of some sort? The reply isn't very clear
as to what changed. Is the GRSecurity issue no longer of concern?

Thank you in advance of a reply


Anonymous 07/16/2017 (Sun) 21:20:38 [Preview] No. 10416 del
>>10412

Thanks for posting the reply.

I don't see how countering BKuhn's stance that one should wait until other cases are resolved before taking action

( https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2017/07/msg00811.html )

>Rather, the giant worldwide queue of known GPL violations
>should be prioritized by figuring out which ones, if solved, will do the
>most to maximize software freedom for all users.

And supporting Bruce Peren's stance (as seen here:)

( https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2017/07/msg00814.html )

Warning of the dangers of not taking action is a "naive argument" and makes me a "fool". Laches still exists (to limit equitable relief). Statutes of limitation still exist (to limit relief under law).

Bruce Perens is not a licensed Attorney; I am. And yes you have to meet deadlines or your case is toast (or you'd better hope the other party continually violates your rights keeping the cause of action open).

He just seems to claim "well one could argue financial inability to pay a lawyer and thus defeat a laches defense". I pointed out that the courts do not accept "physical inability to get a job and comply with a court order to come up with funds because of imprisonment", so why would they accept "well I just can't get a lawyer, even though I could represent myself".

Also note: There is no civil right to council.

Bruce Perens didn't give one example of a laches defense being defeated by a middle class professional's supposed lack of funds to retain a lawer. He just linked to a wikipedia article (which doesn't mention any such thing) as if I didn't know what laches was, even though I brought it up.

Could you perhaps ask him what makes him think that I am a fool?

Remeber: the start of this part of the conversation was BKuhn's idea to just wait until every other case is settled before starting on the current one.


Anonymous 07/16/2017 (Sun) 22:25:35 [Preview] No. 10417 del
>>10416
I could ask, but his response won't be satisfying. It's the same as the mailing list and previous email. He clearly can't say you are wrong and I doubt he would admit to arrogance so his options are call you a fool without evidence again or not reply. Like I say, the fact he even gave you notice was impressive.


Anonymous 07/17/2017 (Mon) 02:11:47 [Preview] No. 10418 del
>>10417

If he responds, it would be interesting to see if he tries to give examples. If there are any (and I doubt there are) they will be from the District of Colombia (DC likes to help the poor, especially in, say, landlord-tenant disputes, for instance), but they wouldn't be applicable to the Third Circuit where GRSecurity now resides, nor would they be applicable to middle-class programmers (who are not indigent), nor would they likely be applicable to plaintiffs bringing an action at all.

I was brainstorming the next step in bringing an action: one is supposed to think of all the little affirmative defenses an opponent might bring as-well as all the procedural hurdles they will place in your way.

Basically it seems that Bruce has publically libeled me in the worst way: questioning my professional abilities, and now since you investigated; we have evidence that he, indeed, did mean it the way we (and likely others on the debian user mailing list) took it.

I imagine that he would like to retract his article, since it was induced by a "fool", however if he were to do so that would impact his reputation, and, ofcourse, there would be a new slashdot, soylentnews, ycombinator (hacker news) story on the retraction.

I do not imagine, however, that he will pursue the GRSecurity case further. A "fool" used him as an implement and he would wish to go no further I would imagine.

Note: one can compare my write-ups on the GRSecurity situation and then his later article. You will see echos of my language. I certainly did.

Thanks for sending that mail. I would be interested to see if he responds again for a clarification.


Anonymous 07/17/2017 (Mon) 03:39:31 [Preview] No. 10419 del
Thanks for sending that original email.


Anonymous 07/21/2017 (Fri) 01:44:30 [Preview] No. 10462 del
Bump! GRSEC!



Top | Return | Catalog | Post a reply