RedHat forks OpenSSH?

[Theo de Raadt]

> >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?

No, but the lawyers do take me out for beer every once in a while.

> 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.

No, there is not even US law to explain this; what there is is legal
fears alone.

> They weren't, and if 
> "the trade secret had been obtained through improper means",

Where do you get these things from?  What is 'improper means'?

> then 
> California law supports going after those who subsequently obtained it, 

	I think we are all pretty sure that the dis-assembly of the
	80 lines of code in question were done all over the world by
	lots of people, but that the code chunks that most of us use
	now were done in Europe, specificaly in countries of Europe
	that have very strong legal protection for reverse engineering.

> even if they did not themselves have an agreement with the owner of the 
> trade secret.

	Then they go after the person who broke the trade secret
	agreements.

They do not go after you.  Not after me.  Under trade secret law they
can ONLY GO after the people who broke the agreements.

There are no questions.  Go ask a lawyer.  He'll explain it to you
in 3 sentences.

> >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.

No, civil law suits are based in a premise that you can make a quick
buck on the back of some previous case law.

Criminal law, on the other hand, is based on real law.

> > 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?

I have better things to do, like make sure that Red Hat's users never
get support from the OpenSSH developers again.

Where are the Red Hat users?