RedHat forks OpenSSH?

[Theo de Raadt]

> Even if the reverse engineering was legal in Norway, using the results 
> of that reverse engineering in the United States may not be.

Where is the law for that?  Please, I want real law.

> >	- taken by a cast of hundreds on the net
> >
> >	- of a trade secret algorithm
> >
> >	- (which even in the case of DVDs is useless without the
> >	  actual keys from the disks, by the way)
> >
> >	- and the actual files in question are written by a german
> >	  developer of ours
> >  
> >
> Again, that's not relevant.  If the DVD CCS made reasonable efforts to 
> maintain their trade secret, and it was disclosed by a violation of 
> their license (with the DVD player manufacturer), then they can still 
> argue that it can still be considered to be a trade secret.

Where is the law for that?

I've checked into this.  In case of a trade secret, the only people
you can litigate against are those who you had agreements with, and
who broke their agreements.  What law are you basing your statements
on?  Are you a lawyer?

> >So when you say 'questionable legal status', which laws are you talking
> >about?
> >  
> >
> The laws of the state of California, for one.  The preliminary 
> injunction in /DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. v. Bunner/ was only 
> lifted this past March.  

A preliminary injunction is not a law.

> http://www.mofo.com/news/general.cfm?MCatID=9006&concentrationID=&ID=1180&Type=5  
> Even though the DVD CCA has dropped this particular case, they have not 
> given up their claim of a trade secret (witness the demise of 321 
> Studios at their hands). 

A claim is not a law.

Where's the law?

> >Either you tell us which laws you are talking about, or you are
> >precisely the kind of people who DVD CCA should be pushing around.
> >  
> >
> Done.

NO!  I asked for LAWS but instead you gave non-laws, and waved your
hands around like a wimp.

> >They don't have a leg to stand on.
> >
> They had enough of a leg to drag out their case versus Bunner for 5 
> years, and enough of a case to drive 321 Studios out of business.

No, because that is a lawsuit case, not a LAW.

Are you still quivering in fear at their law suits, or are there
REAL LAWS?

> >But one of them is a fight worth fighting and one of them is
> >associated with a bunch of spineless wimps who don't understand how to
> >use previous multiple-use rulings in our favour.  Wimps.
> >  
> >
> That's easy to say when its not your money being spent in the fight.  

Money is not law.  It is threat, it is power, but it is not law.

Where's the law, wimp?

> Even when you're right, proving it in court isn't inexpensive.  While it 
> might not be good for your ego, I can understand why Red Hat would 
> consider fighting SCO over Linux to be a better use of their money than 
> risking a fight with the DVD CCA over CSS in OpenSSH.

OK -- I get it now.  You are a wimp, and Redhat are wimps, and it's OK
to be a wimp?

I get it.