[Why is the journal formatting this without a blank line here?]
Mr. Perens counters, and the court agrees, that the blog posts are opinions about a disputed legal issue, are not false assertions of fact, and thus are not actionable libel. . . . Mr. Perens — who is not a lawyer — voiced an opinion about whether the Grsecurity Access Agreement violated the General Public License. No court has addressed the legal issue. Thus, his "opinion" is not a "fact" that can be proven provably false and thus is not actionable as defamation.
While Open Source Security technically has the ability amend its complaint to allege a new legal theory, Judge Beeler said any amendment likely would fall under California's anti-SLAPP statute: "Mr. Perens’s statements were made in a public forum and concern issues of public interest, and the plaintiffs have not shown a probability of prevailing on their claims."
"It is better to have tried and failed than to have failed to try, but the result's the same." - Mike Dennison