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

31–40 of 124 posts

Re: Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio

#31

Post by squarefoot »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #12
rando832 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gplv2 violations are widespread, we need much much more enforcement and more copyleft software, and this could be a huge win. Free software's main purpose should not be to be proprietarized, too much of it now is a group effort among companies to more efficiently lure users to trade their freedom for functionality.

It would be nice if perma-locked bootloaders were illegal.

Not just nice, it would be a huge accomplishment. Imagine being able to resurrect (as in saving from a landfill) old tablets, phones and even smart TVs, or making new ones more usable and trustworthy by flashing a lighter OS that doesn't contain adware and spyware, and can be patched to solve bugs or implement new functions (including codecs) to give the product a longer life. Hardware manufacturers would absolutely hate such a scenario, which is why I'm pessimistic about that.

Re: Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio

#32

Post by perihelions »

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?

I believe a non-California defendant could move that suit into a federal court ("diversity jurisdiction" isn't it?)

But federal courts don't seem to put too much weight on how individual states interpreted a law -- hence my question.

(Same /not-a-lawyer as above)

Re: Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio

#33

Post by colejohnson66 »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #12
rando832 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gplv2 violations are widespread, we need much much more enforcement and more copyleft software, and this could be a huge win. Free software's main purpose should not be to be proprietarized, too much of it now is a group effort among companies to more efficiently lure users to trade their freedom for functionality.

It would be nice if perma-locked bootloaders were illegal.

Isn’t that the idea of the “TiVoisation” clause in the GPLv3? Basically, TiVo released their Linux derivative code, but you couldn’t actually flash your version. The problem is that Linus is staunchly against the GPLv3

Re: Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio

#34

Post by vineyardmike »

IshKebab wrote: post #24
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.

Crazy positive implications for consumers.

California is a pretty good jurisdiction to litigate pro-consumer suits.

Re: Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio

#35

Post by colejohnson66 »

IshKebab wrote: post #24
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.

Genuily asking: what?

Re: Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio

#36

Post by colejohnson66 »

WalterGR wrote: post #3
jra_samba wrote: post #2

Full legal text of the complaint: https://sfconservancy.org/docs/conservancy-v-vizio-original-... Press kit: https://shoestring.agency/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/SFC_Pre...

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…

It’s scanned because those are the filed copied (with signatures), not the (literal) preprint.

Re: Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio

#37

Post by jepler »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #33
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be nice if perma-locked bootloaders were illegal.

Isn’t that the idea of the “TiVoisation” clause in the GPLv3? Basically, TiVo released their Linux derivative code, but you couldn’t actually flash your version. The problem is that Linus is staunchly against the GPLv3

At risk of making a gross oversimplification, sfconservancy seems to be pursuing the angle that GPLv2 _ALSO_ was intended to prevent tivoization. see e.g., https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t... which refers heavily to pre-GPLv3 discussions about the topic.

"In GPL enforcement actions at the time, during our “complete, corresponding source (CCS) checks”, we verified that the source code was not only complete, but that it corresponded to the binaries on the vendors' devices, and that we could install modified versions of the software. This was a standard part of any check to verify GPLv2 compliance. Passing this check was required, then and now, by FSF and Conservancy before distribution rights are restored after a violation."

"That position was not controversial when I, along with then FSF counsel (Daniel Ravicher), taught it to lawyers in 2003 and 2004 on FSF's behalf. Nevertheless, today, many act as if this interpretation and intent of GPLv2§3¶2 is a recent and novel phenomena, rather than a long standing position held by all copyleft activists for at least 18 years. Today, most companies and lawyers argue (incorrectly, IMO) that users have no rights to reinstall their GPLv2'd software."

Re: Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio

#38

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

While I'm in favor of this, it makes me question somewhat the potential unintended consequences of something like this, in that it makes shipping actual hardware devices with actual software on the device even less appealing.

That is, if I provide a SaaS platform, my understanding is that even if I use all types of GPL code to run my service, as long as I don't "ship" the code for that service to end users (which is like 99% of all SaaS products when it comes to backend services), I don't need to share my code.

But if I release a hardware product and by definition I need to ship that code to end-users, then I do need to share my code. Just seems to be an incentive to make more and more stuff "subscription based" with a backend service. Though, due to other economic incentives businesses want to do that anyway, so perhaps my point is moot.

Re: Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio

#39

Post by singron »

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?

Not a lawyer. A copyright license is a written agreement not dissimilar from a contract.

However, validating the contract usually doesn't come up, because the violator needs the agreement to be valid to avoid copyright infringement.

> Because the GPL does not require any promises in return from licensees, it does not need contract enforcement in order to work. A GPL licensor doesn't say in the event of trouble "But, judge, the licensee promised me he wouldn't do what he's doing now." The licensor plaintiff says 'Judge, the defendant is redistributing my copyrighted work without permission.' The defendant can then either agree that he has no permission, in which case he loses, or assert that his permission is the GPL, in which case he must show that he is obeying its terms. A defendant cannot simultaneously assert that the GPL is valid permission for his distribution and also assert that it is not a valid copyright license, which is why defendants do not 'challenge' the GPL.

https://lwn.net/Articles/61292/

However, I believe only the copyright holder can sue for copyright infringement, so this case is instead taking that oft-skipped step of validating the contract so it can further claim SFC is a party of the contract. Infringement cases also have specific rules about damages, which can make it hard to actually get the infringer to do anything when you give the software away for free. IMO the "specific performance" seems likely to be granted if they win the case on contract grounds.

There was another recent case where they seemed to rule the GPL could be enforced as a contract, but I'm not familiar: https://www.theregister.com/2017/05/13/gnu_gpl_enforceable_c...

Re: Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio

#40

Post by dragonwriter »

singron wrote: post #39
zucker42 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Not a lawyer. A copyright license is a written agreement not dissimilar from a contract. However, validating the contract usually doesn't come up, because the violator needs the agreement to be valid to avoid copyright infringement. > Because the GPL does not require any promises in return from licensees, it does not need contract enforcement in order to work. A GPL licensor doesn't say in the event of trouble "But,…

> A copyright license is a written agreement not dissimilar from a contract.

Neither a copyright license nor a contract needs to be a written agreement, except in special cases, and a copyright license either is a contract or is a gratuitous license.

> because the violator needs the agreement to be valid to avoid copyright infringement.

Not in US law if the use would be within an exception like free use, even if it is purportedly prohibited by the license (which, if the license were a valid contract, would prohibit the conduct even if it was free use without the contract being in place.)

Post reply on HN