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

41–50 of 124 posts

Re: Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio

#41

Post by billyjobob »

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.

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 “some parts of the kernel aren’t gpl” specifically to allow them to violate GPL so Linux could have their drivers.

Re: Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio

#42

Post by spijdar »

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…

I think the response of advocates would be that the solution is for more people to use AGPL, which would fix that "loophole".

Now, I don't see AGPL becoming widespread personally, but this is essentially its reason for existing.

Re: Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio

#43

Post by sokoloff »

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…

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 license terms (not the preamble) of GPLv2 would apply to prevent TiVo-isation.

Further, if it does apply, how has no one successfully sued TiVo over it?

Re: Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio

#44

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

sokoloff wrote: post #43
jepler wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Re: Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio

#45

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio

#46

Post by Wowfunhappy »

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…

Were none of the contributors to the original software willing to participate in the conservatory's case?

Re: Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio

#47

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

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

> 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.

Re: Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio

#48

Post by bombcar »

sokoloff wrote: post #43
jepler wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

To me “our code can’t run on TiVos” is basically a political statement along the lines of “it can’t be used for evil, or for nuclear weapons” and so on.

It’s certainly an option to license it that way but I think GPL 3 was mostly a mistake.

Re: Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio

#49

Post by Retric »

sokoloff wrote: post #43
jepler wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

If you buy a new car at a dealership they can’t withhold the car keys as an optional extra.

The same applies here. If the script needs a key to work then that key is part of the script.

Re: Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio

#50

Post by gpm »

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?

As I understand neither running code nor selling an object containing copyrighted material is prohibited by copyright law, so unless you needed a license to that code for some other reason you probably haven't agreed to the contract at all and can't violate it.
Post reply on HN