[HN Gopher] Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit again... ___________________________________________________________________ Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio Author : jra_samba Score : 153 points Date : 2021-10-19 17:35 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (sfconservancy.org) (TXT) w3m dump (sfconservancy.org) | alexarnesen wrote: | I 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? | wmf wrote: | Nobody's asking for Vizio's code, just the modifications to GPL | software (e.g. kconfig, non-upstream kernel modules, etc.) | spamizbad wrote: | 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? | 10000truths wrote: | 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. | JoshTriplett wrote: | 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 action brought | by the copyright holder. This suit is on behalf of users, as | beneficiaries of the GPL. 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; it 'll | suffice to show that you're a user who wishes to make use of the | rights provided under the license. | [deleted] | rando832 wrote: | 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. | kevin_thibedeau wrote: | It would be nice if perma-locked bootloaders were illegal. | colejohnson66 wrote: | 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 | dv_dt wrote: | That imho should be an extension of right-to-repair (and | own/modify) | squarefoot wrote: | 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. | perihelions wrote: | > _" 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 | wmf wrote: | Also not a lawyer, but can't you sue in California over any | product sold in California? | perihelions wrote: | 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) | jfrunyon wrote: | Sure, if you live in California. (I think IANAL is a given | because I don't think any lawyer is giving out legal advice | on HN) | [deleted] | IshKebab wrote: | I can't see this succeeding because it would have some crazy | implications in general. | vineyardmike wrote: | Crazy positive implications for consumers. | | California is a pretty good jurisdiction to litigate pro- | consumer suits. | colejohnson66 wrote: | Genuily asking: what? | jra_samba wrote: | 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... | WalterGR wrote: | _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 operating | system, which all computerized devices, like smart TV s, | require in order to function. The Linux kernel is one of the | most popular operating system kernels. | | (b) alsa-utils, which is a suite of programs that assist and | manage ALSA, Linux's audio subsystem. | | (c) GNU bash, which is a " shell," a program that allows users | to interface with the operating system and is required for most | operating systems. | | (d) GNU awk, which is a popular scripting language with many | uses. | | (e) bluez, which is a suite of programs that assist and manage | Bluetooth for Linux ased devices. | | (f) BusyBox, which is a popular "thin footprint" suite of | utilities for Linux. | | (g) coreutils, which is a popular suite of utilities for Linux, | with a larger "footprint" than BusyBox | | 38. Among the computer programs that comprise SmartCast are a | number of programs subject to the LGPLv2.1: | | (a) The GNU C Library, which is a library of resources that | allows Linux users to program in the popular C and C++ | programming languages. It would be required for any Linux14 | based operating system that wished to take advantage of these | popular programming languages. | | (b) | | (c) | | (d) hardware. | | (e) ffmpeg, which is a suite of libraries for handling audio, | video, and multimedia. glib, which is a library that | facilitates programming in C. DirectFB, which is a library that | allows Linux-based systems to work with video libasound, which | is a library that helps third-party programs interact with | ALSA, Linux's audio subsystem. | | (f) libelf, which is a library for reading and modifying binary | files. | | (g) | | (h) file systems. | | (i) libgcrypt, which is a C programming library of encryption | functions and utilities. libmount, which is a library that | helps third-party programs interact with Linux libnl, which is | a suite of libraries related to using netlink, a popular | network communication protocol. | | (j) selinux libraries, which help third-party programs interact | with selinux. | | (k) systemd, which is a large system that manages, organizes | and handles shutdown and restarting of system services on a | Linux-based system. | rich_sasha wrote: | 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. | alittlesalami wrote: | The Software Freedom Conservancy has a page on exactly | this: | | https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/firmware- | liber... | smitop wrote: | They only need to provide the sources for the kernel, not | the software running on top of the kernel. Usually they | _do_ publish the source for their kernel somewhere on their | website in my experience (although they don 't always | provide a direct link to it on the product). | HideousKojima wrote: | 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 | PeterisP wrote: | 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 provide a promise that those | requests will be honored. | colejohnson66 wrote: | It's scanned because those are the filed copied (with | signatures), not the (literal) preprint. | belorn wrote: | 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 they seems to define GPL as | being under contract law and not under copyright law. | | In this new case, the SFC is arguing a case in the context of | third-party beneficiary which is under contract law and not | copyright law. It seems like a bit of an long-shot, but if won it | could mean a major change in interpreting GPL as a contract | rather than a copyright license. I would guess that it also would | change their strategy in other countries if won. | zucker42 wrote: | 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? | belorn wrote: | 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 to be tested. It is also possible that they simply are | testing something new when other approaches have failed. | | According to the press kit, the case is claimed to be unique. | InTheArena wrote: | You would think that if Vizio was hijacking code from GPL'd | sources, their firmware on TVs would be better. | wmf wrote: | As the old saying goes, you can write bad code in any language | or on top of any libraries. SmartCast is sooooo slow. | pacoWebConsult wrote: | I need to reboot my Vizio TV weekly through a hidden system | menu to fix audio desync issues. Simply power cycling from | the remote does not work, as far as I can tell that's a sleep | mode. Absolutely terrible device and I will not be going back | to Vizio in the future. | phkahler wrote: | They're still using pulseaudio and not pipewire? | michaelmrose wrote: | Why would a TV be shipping beta software? | | I shouldn't be surprised if it was alsa alone. Shall we | instead ssh into our tv to kill and restart pulse? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-10-19 23:00 UTC)