RedHat forks OpenSSH?

[Sten Drescher]

Theo de Raadt wrote:

>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?
>  
>
No, I'm not - are you?  I expect that Bunner was represented by 
competent lawyers, though, and if there wasn't law to support the DVD 
CCA's claims, they would have been able to get the case (or at least the 
trade secret claims) dismissed as a matter of law.  They weren't, and if 
"the trade secret had been obtained through improper means", then 
California law supports going after those who subsequently obtained it, 
even if they did not themselves have an agreement with the owner of the 
trade secret.

>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?
>  
>
Hint: law suits are based on laws.

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

If you're so confident of your position, how about you imdemnify Red Hat 
against any losses due to any trade secret litigation from the DVD CCA - 
or are you too much of a wimp to do that?

Sten