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

81–90 of 124 posts

Re: Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio

#81

Post by boomboomsubban »

jfrunyon wrote: post #78
boomboomsubban wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Software Freedom Conservancy is based out of New York, and they are the plaintiffs here.

... and your point is? The Software Freedom Conservancy is a business which can do business in many states and be subject to the jurisdiction of courts in all of them, unlike an individual, who can be resident in only one state. (And even then, an individual could also sue in California if the event being sued over - like a purchase or an accident - occurred in California)

Being a resident isn't really a requirement if at most all you need to do to bypass it is form a company anywhere.

Re: Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio

#82

Post by [deleted] »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #47
colejohnson66 wrote: post #33

Earlier 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

> The problem is that Linus is staunchly against the GPLv3 No he isn't. He is unable to relicense the kernel. Whenever he's interviewed on the subject it is always in relation to kernel development. He doesn't control the copyright on the entire codebase and there are too many contributors, some dead, for anyone to get copyright assignment sorted out.

[deleted]

Re: Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio

#83

Post by duskwuff »

squarefoot wrote: post #31
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think you're overestimating developer ability/willingness. There's a lot of hardware out there which could in theory have third-party firmware built for it, but which hasn't because it's just too niche for anyone to have bothered, or because there's insufficient public documentation.

Most smart TVs, for example, fall into both categories. There are simply too many models for a third-party firmware effort to take off, and documentation on the hardware used in these TVs is usually nonexistent. (And the hardware is often already stretched to its limits on the stock firmware -- implementing "new functions, including codecs" is likely to be impossible.)

Re: Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio

#84

Post by grishka »

duskwuff wrote: post #83
squarefoot wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think you're overestimating developer ability/willingness. There's a lot of hardware out there which could in theory have third-party firmware built for it, but which hasn't because it's just too niche for anyone to have bothered, or because there's insufficient public documentation. Most smart TVs, for example, fall into both categories. There are simply too many models for a third-party firmware effort to take of…

There are many models of smart TVs, but they reuse components and software a lot. I remember rooting my Samsung TV with a universal exploit that worked across something like several years of models.

Re: Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio

#85

Post by drewg123 »

pabs3 wrote: post #70
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…

If this strategy becomes validated by this case, it means that any organisation can bring GPL compliance lawsuits. Hopefully that leads to companies noting their increased potential for liability by multiple less scrupulous actors than SFC and spontaneously coming into compliance.

The alternative is that they will decide that GPL software is not worth the legal risk, and ban its use.

Re: Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio

#86

Post by drewg123 »

bluGill wrote: post #53
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #38

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…

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 ch…

Yes, exactly. This is how companies react.

Re: Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio

#87

Post by matheusmoreira »

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.

Would be nice if all corporate exploitation was illegal.

Re: Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio

#88

Post by stordoff »

belorn wrote: post #30
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?

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 t…

> It is strange, but I have seen in novel court cases where cases in other countries are used as an example.

AIUI, it's relatively common in common law jurisdictions as a form of persuasive precedent[1] (I'm most familiar with England and Wales, where it has been noted "[c]ases decided in other jurisdictions can, if properly used, be a valuable source of law in this jurisdiction"). Though non-binding, the jurisdictions are based on (broadly) the same legal principles, so in areas where common law (as opposed to statue) predominates, a ruling in a comparable jurisdiction may suggest that similar findings would be true in the current jurisdiction, even if it hasn't formally been decided by a higher court.

As such, it can be illustrative to examine the reasoning of a rational, out of jurisdiction court and see how it would map to the current jurisdiction. If the necessary legal principles are applicable in the current jurisdiction, it would suggest a similar decision would be reached, but if something specific to this jurisdiction interrupts the chain of reasoning, it suggests local courts must come to a different decision, and may indicate how the ruling must be modified. As another example, if the reasonableness of a person's actions must be examined, a competent, rational court supporting similar actions in an adjacent jurisdiction may add strength to an argument that the person's actions were reasonable.

There is a brief discussion on the use of foreign caselaw by the House of Lords (predecessor to the Supreme Court) at [3].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent#Persuasive_effect_of...

[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20110204002153/http://www.hmcour...

[3] https://web.archive.org/web/20191025182334/https://www.loc.g...

Re: Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio

#89

Post by staticautomatic »

perihelions wrote: post #17
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…

> "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

Presumably the suit is federal because it’s a copyright case. So, yeah, it would have some significance within the 9th circuit until the appeals shake out.

Re: Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio

#90

Post by whoknowswhat11 »

jepler wrote: post #37
colejohnson66 wrote: post #33

Earlier 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…

This would be an absolutely crazy outcome if this turned out to be a result.

I think Vizio (who I have no love for) would get a HUGE number of opens source folks behind them.

We need to look at what developers believed GPLv2 required and what it did not.

The whole Tivo issue came about because GPLv2 does NOT require that a developer ALSO make it so that others can use HARDWARE they create any way they want. Linus (who is a major GPLv2 user) also was clear, he wanted folks to have to share software, but didn't want or care what they did with it - they could put it in a car (that was locked down from modification), they could put it in a motor controller (also locked to manage duty cycles), they could put it in a pacemaker (also locked for regulatory and safety reasons).

Post reply on HN