[1] https://sfconservancy.org/news/2025/jul/10/sfc-updates-motio...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linksys_WRT54G_series#Third-pa...
That kind of thing is both a deterrent to commercial violation of licenses (unplanned open sourcing), and moves open source forward.
Though I also like the idea of monetary penalties large enough to be a deterrent.
Yes, SFC is indeed trying to open up the software as happened with OpenWrt [1], though in this case the software in question is the operating system instead of the firmware.
I think the SFC also wanted to establish a legal precedent about the rights given by the GPLv2 to users. Unfortunately, such a precedent might not be forthcoming [2].
[1] https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html
That’s 10 years of no income.
Seems reasonable for a fine of 10 years global revenue for a company.
GPL v2 does not require this.
https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t... https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017...
It's been well-established that the copyright holders can sue Visio for violating their license. But it's actually often difficult to get the copyright holders to do any suing -- the cost/benefit for most developers just isn't worth it; many developers are actually strongly opposed to doing so.
Consumers have much more "skin in the game". Khun has developed a legal theory that he thinks should give consumers standing to sue (something about GPL also being a contract, and consumers being a beneficiary of the contract, if I understand correctly). That's why SFC is suing, without any copyright holders.
If they won this case under that theory, it would mean SFC could go after any GPL copyright violators on their own, without having to try to track down a copyright holder and convince them to get involved.
But from that perspective, it looks to me (admittedly as a layperson) like they screwed up: they won the right to the source code based not on the license by itself, but based on the fact that some menu somewhere said they could have it. And, their initial arguments based on the GPL were missing something, and they're not allowed to amend the motion for summary judgment. And, now that they've gotten the source code based on the menu, I'm not sure they can continue the lawsuit (since there's no point, they've already gotten what they want). So while they may have gained experience refining their legal technique (by failure), they haven't yet proven that the new legal theory works.
[1] https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2022/may/11/vizio-update-1/
1. I have an amazing recipe.
2. I give my recipe to a bakery with the agreement that X% of proceeds will be donated to a local charity.
3. The bakery doesn't keep their promise.
4. Even without my participation, the local charity is a "third party beneficiary" of the contract, and can sue the bakery for breaking it.
gwd•2mo ago
https://sfconservancy.org/news/2025/dec/04/tentative-vizio-r...
Apparently the actual case was to be argued in a session starting at 10am pacific, with their case as number 11.
Just skimming it, it looks like the judge grants 1 of 3 requests:
1. Vizio does have a "contractual duty" to provide the source code to SFC of any GPLv2 or LGPLv2 software
2/3. Vizio is not required to either provide the source code or an offer to give the source code to all buyers of the tv of any GPLv2 (issue 2) or LGPLv2 (issue 3).
Basically, if I'm reading it correctly, they have to give you the source code if you ask for it, but they don't have to tell you that you can ask.
ETA: Oh, but 2 and 3 are denied due to some technicality about how the SFC filed for summary judgements, without making any comment about whether they would have succeeded if they'd filed things another way.
And 1 is granted because somewhere in some menu on the TV said they could request it.
So what happens if Visio removes that menu option offering to give you the source code, and someone else files the motions properly? Not clear.
In other words, it doesn't look to me like it sets a real precedent either way.
Zak•2mo ago
I think the bigger picture is more subtle than that. You, the buyer do not have a cause of action if they fail to tell you that you can ask.
They would, however be in violation of copyright if they don't tell buyers that they are entitled to ask for a copy of the source code because the license requires that they do so, and nothing else gives them permission to distributed the covered software. Any relevant copyright holder would have a cause of action in that case, but the SFC is not a copyright holder in this case.
giancarlostoro•2mo ago
conartist6•2mo ago
That's why it's such a powerful force for software freedom if the terms hold up.
Zak•2mo ago
The license is intended to impose obligations in the case of linking, but dynamic linking does not make a copy of the library at build time; it just generates enough metadata for the program to call the library. One might reasonably argue that no derivative work is created by dynamic linking, or that it is only created when the end user runs it.
EULAs are enforceable because the program is copied into RAM at runtime (a bad precedent, I think), but the GPL is not a EULA and only imposes requirements on distributors, not end users.
mistrial9•2mo ago
the intent of the GPL family of LICENSE is clear. There certainly will be efforts to diminish its reach by motivated parties. Tests in US courts are certainly a function of the depth of the pockets of litigants, no?
Zak•2mo ago
giancarlostoro•2mo ago
There were bits and pieces in various languages.
giancarlostoro•2mo ago
Sounds like GPL v4 is inbound, a GPL license that forces you to inform your customer that your product uses a GPL licensed software by putting an image of Richard Stallman somewhere in your startup screen.
acuozzo•2mo ago
This is what I love about the original 4-clause BSD license.
giancarlostoro•2mo ago
acuozzo•1mo ago
gpm•2mo ago
> c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
GPLv3
> d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your work need not make them do so.
With the definition
> An interactive user interface displays “Appropriate Legal Notices” to the extent that it includes a convenient and prominently visible feature that (1) displays an appropriate copyright notice, and (2) tells the user that there is no warranty for the work (except to the extent that warranties are provided), that licensees may convey the work under this License, and how to view a copy of this License. If the interface presents a list of user commands or options, such as a menu, a prominent item in the list meets this criterion.
As I understand the licenses if you use a GPLv2/3 library and you aren't proactively displaying notices (i.e. not just including them in a menu that the user might not even see or a readme file, but actually printing something about licenses to the screen every single time the user starts the program) you are committing copyright infringement.
kmeisthax•2mo ago
db48x•1mo ago