Every time I fast-read this as Software Freedom Conspiracy. I would probably love such a conspiracy to exist though :-)
Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio
51–60 of 124 posts
Re: Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio
#52Full 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…
Irrelevant, but (a) is technically incorrect. 'computerized devices, like smart TV s', do not necessarily require an "operating system" in order to function. If you removed the comma between 'devices' and 'like', then I think this would be correct.
Re: Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio
#53While 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…
It just drives more companies to be more careful about their license. My company has for years banned any GPL3 code on devices we ship. If GPL2 is suddenly found more restrictive than we expected we will ban that too. FreeBSD/NetBSD will be the winner there, along with other projects. We don't contribute much, but we already consider license before we contribute back - and if we can't get GPL code we will make the changes needed to BSD code. Most of our changes will be contributed back - only changes that are actually things that matter to us will be withheld and those are not part of open source projects to anyway)
Re: Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 provi…
Back around 2012 my company was preparing an embedded system. The day the license was added one of our tester found the section about sending $5 to whatever address to get that source code. He sent the letter with his $5 and it came back return to sender. Even though this was an internal only release (most of the functions weren't even written yet) our lawyers made us go through the entire recall process to replace all the code the testers were working with - to show good faith just in case something more happened.
Re: Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio
#55Earlier 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.
It’s because they know Linus doesn’t care about software freedom[1] and it’s difficult to find kernel devs willing to sue when they know the boss doesn’t want them to. [1] e.g. when TiVo violated the GPL he let them, because apparently they found a loophole. When FSF closed the loophole definitively in GPLv3 he refused to adopt it. Also he grumbles about Nvidia but he was the one who created the weird loophole that “…
The Software Freedom Conservancy represents a coalition of Linux kernel developers who are willing to sue despite Linus' opinions.
[1] is incorrect, what TiVo did (disabling the proprietary software on your device when you modify the GPL software) is allowed even by GPLv3, even though RMS did want to prevent the possibility of that. Also, the requirement to allow software reinstall is there even in GPLv2.
https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017... https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t...
Re: Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio
#56Question: 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.
> 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.
If they find out about it they will. Trademark law requires that they do. I know of a few that have gotten warnings about such things - they stopped doing it on the warning and so it didn't go farther.
Re: Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not at all clear-cut to me. (IANAL.) If a cryptographic key is required, it’s not clear to me that that is either “source code” nor “script used to control compilation/installation”. If you asked developers “is a certificate source code?”, I think most would say “No”. If you asked them “is a certificate a script?”, I think almost all would say “No”. If it’s not either of those things, I don’t know how the licens…
The “script used to control compilation/installation” needs to actually work. If it can't work without a certificate, then it doesn't work without a certificate.
Isn't the problem that the code would work fine on a piece of hardware that doesn't perform the signature check, it's just you'd have to make that piece of hardware yourself?
Re: Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio
#58This 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…
SFC also represent a coalition of Linux kernel developers, so they could have (also?) gone the traditional route.
Re: Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 n…
[deleted]
Re: Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio
#60I 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?
No, the GPL always kicks in once you distribute binaries without providing a way to obtain their sources.