Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio

sfconservancy.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 124 posts

Re: Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio

#21

Post by zucker42 »

belorn wrote: post #15

This looks to be a major change in the legal strategy behind GPL. In the past the focus has been on copyright claims by copyright holders, but as recent cases has shown in Germany and France, those has faced some rather strange setbacks. Germany don't seem to want to recognize copyright holders that only contributed a part of a larger work, which is basically all copyright holders for larger FOSS projects. In France…

It seems strange to me that they'd adopt this strategy in the U.S. because of past failures in other countries. Gplv2 makes pretty clear it's a copyright license, so I see no reason it would be interpreted under contract law in the U.S., and as a layperson it seems unlikely that SFC would have standing in this case. Has a third party beneficiary ever been held to have standing in a copyright case?

Re: Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio

#22

Post by wmf »

alexarnesen wrote: post #19

I thought copyright in GPLv2 kicks in once someone is linking? I saw Linux Kernel, bash, awk mentioned; but if these were compiled into binary assets without any code from the TV, then isn't Vizio entitled to sell these TVs without disclosing their own source code?

Nobody's asking for Vizio's code, just the modifications to GPL software (e.g. kconfig, non-upstream kernel modules, etc.)

Re: Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio

#23

Post by PeterisP »

HideousKojima wrote: post #10
rich_sasha wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good point that Linux kernel is GPL - how can companies sell products with an embedded Linux then? They don't seem to be publishing sources. Basically anything IoT more advanced than a thermometer seems to be running Linux.

Technically the GPLv2 only requires you to provide source on request from someone who received the binaries, it doesn't require companies to proactively publish it. I think the GPLv3 changes this slightly

GPLv2 requires you to either proactively provide the source or proactively provide a written offer to provide source on request to any third party (section 3 of the GPLv2) - simply distributing binaries without including either source or an offer is technically a breach of license.

Reacting to requests is not sufficient, you have to inform the recipient that they actually are entitled to make those requests and provide a promise that those requests will be honored.

Re: Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio

#24

Post by IshKebab »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #4

An especially novel aspect of this lawsuit, quoting the press release: > This approach makes it the first legal case that focuses on the rights of individual consumers as third-party beneficiaries of the GPL. > “That’s what makes this litigation unique and historic in terms of defending consumer rights,” says Karen M. Sandler, the organization’s executive director. In the past, GPL enforcement has been a cause of act…

I can't see this succeeding because it would have some crazy implications in general.

Re: Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio

#25

Post by jfrunyon »

wmf wrote: post #20
perihelions wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "If this suit is successful, it'll no longer be necessary to prove sufficient standing as a copyright holder of GPLed code in order to enforce the license;" Would such a decision have any usefulness outside of California? This specific lawsuit is filed in a California state court, against a California defendant. /not a lawyer

Also not a lawyer, but can't you sue in California over any product sold in California?

Sure, if you live in California. (I think IANAL is a given because I don't think any lawyer is giving out legal advice on HN)

Re: Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio

#26

Post by smitop »

rich_sasha wrote: post #6
WalterGR wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Full legal text of the complaint: https://sfconservancy.org/docs/conservancy-v-vizio-original-... Paragraphs 37 and 38 list the relevant software packages. Strangely the PDF is a scan. The OCR / embedded text isn't complete so there are some parts missing below... 37. Among the computer programs that comprise SmartCast are a number of programs 15 subject to the GPLv2: (a) The Linux kernel. A kernel is the heart of an…

Good point that Linux kernel is GPL - how can companies sell products with an embedded Linux then? They don't seem to be publishing sources. Basically anything IoT more advanced than a thermometer seems to be running Linux.

They only need to provide the sources for the kernel, not the software running on top of the kernel. Usually they do publish the source for their kernel somewhere on their website in my experience (although they don't always provide a direct link to it on the product).

Re: Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio

#28

Post by 10000truths »

spamizbad wrote: post #27

Question: if I sell my old Visio TV that violates the GPL, am I now also in violation of the license since I’m redistributing it?

Even if the argument could be made, there would be no practical way to enforce it. It’s not like Disney is breathing down my neck if I “redistribute” their IP by getting paid $50 to dress up in a Mickey Mouse costume for a kids birthday party.

Re: Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio

#29

Post by [deleted] »

wmf wrote: post #20
perihelions wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "If this suit is successful, it'll no longer be necessary to prove sufficient standing as a copyright holder of GPLed code in order to enforce the license;" Would such a decision have any usefulness outside of California? This specific lawsuit is filed in a California state court, against a California defendant. /not a lawyer

Also not a lawyer, but can't you sue in California over any product sold in California?

[deleted]

Re: Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio

#30

Post by belorn »

zucker42 wrote: post #21
belorn wrote: post #15

This looks to be a major change in the legal strategy behind GPL. In the past the focus has been on copyright claims by copyright holders, but as recent cases has shown in Germany and France, those has faced some rather strange setbacks. Germany don't seem to want to recognize copyright holders that only contributed a part of a larger work, which is basically all copyright holders for larger FOSS projects. In France…

It seems strange to me that they'd adopt this strategy in the U.S. because of past failures in other countries. Gplv2 makes pretty clear it's a copyright license, so I see no reason it would be interpreted under contract law in the U.S., and as a layperson it seems unlikely that SFC would have standing in this case. Has a third party beneficiary ever been held to have standing in a copyright case?

It is strange, but I have seen in novel court cases where cases in other countries are used as an example. It is possible that they want the court to either confirm that GPL should be treated as a copyright license and not a contract, or that GPL can be seen as a contract in which users has a third-party beneficiary role. When they have that ruling they can use it as an example in countries where a gpl case has yet to be tested. It is also possible that they simply are testing something new when other approaches have failed.

According to the press kit, the case is claimed to be unique.

Post reply on HN