Software Freedom Conservancy Sues Vizio for GPL Violations (sfconservancy.org) 65
Jeremy Allison - Sam writes: Software Freedom Conservancy, a non-profit organization that promotes open-source software and defends the free software General Public License (GPL), announced today it has filed a lawsuit against Vizio for what it calls repeated failures to fulfill even the basic requirements of the GPL. The lawsuit alleges that Vizio's TV products, built on its SmartCast system, contain software that Vizio unfairly appropriated from a community of developers who intended consumers to have very specific rights to modify, improve, share, and reinstall modified versions of the software.
Copyright holders? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They are suing as a customer who bought one of their products.
The customer has a right to receive the GPL source code in the tv which is apparently not provided.
Re: Copyright holders? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Thatâ(TM)s what they claim. In reality, if you are not the copyright holder, you donâ(TM)t have a legal leg to stand on.
You don't have the right to sue for copyright infringement, but then that is not what they are suing over, it's the failure of the contractual requirement to provide the source code.
Re: (Score:1)
You don't have the right to sue for copyright infringement, but then that is not what they are suing over, it's the failure of the contractual requirement to provide the source code.
But is the customer a party to this contract?
Re: (Score:2)
But is the customer a party to this contract?
This is an interesting question. And I'd like to see what logic both sides end up using in the case.
My totally unqualified opinion is that no. A Vizio product purchased for retail by a customer/end-user is a regular sale, meaning there is generally no additional contract on top of the implied contract of the sale. And while Vizio could have expressly warrant in the contract that the goods will be fit for the buyer’s intended purpose (open source monkeying), they did not not.
Perhaps because of GPL's li
Re: (Score:2)
When someone sells you something, they are representing that they have the right to sell it to you. If Visio is in violation of the GPL, then they had no such right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only the license, which is a contract between the copyright holders and the company states that. So only copyright holders have standing to enforce that.
Not all lawyers agree with you. We're about to find out who is right.
Re: (Score:1)
Unfortunately there is no law supporting the claim that the customer is entitled to the source code. Only the license, which is a contract between the copyright holders and the company states that. So only copyright holders have standing to enforce that.
This may be the correct opinion. my reasoning is that the consumer likely has no obligation to use or distribute the source code since the manufacturer has extended no contractual agreement to do so. But if the consumer was a developer upstream who was distributing a product based on the original contribution? A bit different and maybe the point of GPL?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
And what about the license obligations, GPL and others? There are for sure other licenses in effect that apply to the application of the source code and it's use in the development of the finished product which will imply GPL is a stage of that development. Other licenses even outside of that will have more relevance to the end user as the GPL chain was not meant to apply to them.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
They are suing as a customer who bought one of their products.
The customer has no legal standing to sue for copyright violation.
Only the owner of the copyright has legal standing to sue.
This lawsuit will be dismissed as frivolous long before it gets to court.
Re: (Score:2)
The basis of the suit is not copyright violation, it's breech of the licence terms. The terms say that the person receiving the software must also be provided with a copy of the code and the rights set out in the GPL V3. That includes the right to modify the software and run the compiled binary on the device, to prevent "tivoization" - where the manufacturer uses technical means to prevent modified code from running.
Re: (Score:2)
The basis of the suit is not copyright violation, it's breech of the licence terms.
The plaintiff isn't a party to the license that requires the source code be provided. That's a license from . . . the copyright holder.
Re: (Score:3)
If Vizio created a modified form, they are required to release it under the GPL. So they are violating a phantom license agreement with the end customer that technically may not exist. Although a lot of manufacturers include a link to GPL in their manual and leave it at that, which would suffice to make them party to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Once you have collected the details, you should send a precise report to the copyright holders of the packages that are being wrongly distributed. The GNU licenses are copyright licenses; free licenses in general are based on copyright. In most countries only the copyright holders are legally empowered to act against violations.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you really think the lawyers for the Software Freedom Conservancy haven't thought about that?
Re: (Score:2)
Then you should have read the article, where it has a quote discussing that very topic.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Copyright holders? (Score:5, Informative)
From the SFC announcement [sfconservancy.org]:
She explains that in past litigation, the plaintiffs have always been copyright holders of the specific GPL code. In this case, Software Freedom Conservancy hopes to demonstrate that it's not just the copyright holders, but also the receivers of the licensed code who are entitled to rights.
Re: (Score:3)
They're trying to enforce terms of a license they're not a party to.
Good luck with that.
Re: (Score:1)
They're trying to enforce terms of a license they're not a party to.
Good luck with that.
How do you know this?
I have purchased a Vizio TV. That makes me a party of the license.
The TV came with binary software on it, and Vizio is compelled by the GPL such that Vizio *must* license that software to *all* 3rd parties.
Vizio has licensed me personally to their software, and that license says I am entitled to their source code.
How can you be so absolutely sure not a single person in this non-profit hasn't purchased one of these TVs too?
Re: (Score:1)
They're trying to enforce terms of a license they're not a party to.
Good luck with that.
How do you know this?
Because I know how contracts work.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't a contract, it's a license.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, correction, a license is a kind of contract, however the GPL is a special kind of contract that extends rights and protections to third parties This has been extensively tested in court, always with success.
Re: (Score:2)
The writer of a contract doesn't get to decide what is and isn't a special kind of contract. Only the legislature does. It's a contract that has some odd provisions, but in the eyes of the law, it's still a license for copyright between the copyright holder and the licensee, neither of which is the end user.
This isn't a new or obscure area of law, and there's plenty of precedent.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure the SFC lawyers are aware of all that.
I'm not one myself, but I think the reasoning is that there is a sale contract between licensee and end user, and if the end user is aware of the GPL license, they could reasonably expect that the access to the source code is part of that sale contract as well. If so, Vizio is then in violation and is sueable by the end user. The
SFC lawsuit would be a way to test that reasoning.
Re: (Score:2)
Plus the GPL language specifically grants rights to the user.
Re: (Score:2)
The writer of a contract doesn't get to decide what is and isn't a special kind of contract.
Nonsense, this is done all the time with licenses. Many weird and wonderful constructions have survived the courts.
Re: (Score:2)
"We are asking the court to require Vizio to make good on its obligations under copyleft compliance requirements," says Sandler. She explains that in past litigation, the plaintiffs have always been copyright holders of the specific GPL code. In this case, Software Freedom Conservancy hopes to demonstrate that it's not just the copyright holders, but also the receivers of the licensed code who are entitled to rights.
Nobody knows if they have standing (Score:2)
This is the first case of its kind, so nobody knows what will happen.
If a license says "you have to pay your customers $10" would it be legal?
Unclear.
So sue them (Score:1)
The Software Freedom Conservancy's presskit for the Visio lawsuit was created with non-free software, according to the properties information in the pdf file.... Using Adobe on a Mac to create their pdf doesn't seem to be on-message with their overall mission.
So why don't you go an sue them, smartypants!
Re: (Score:1)
Using Adobe on a Mac to create their pdf doesn't seem to be on-message with their overall mission.
Doesn't it? They're clearly pro free software but I don't see where they say they're anti the use of proprietary software. I may have missed something though?
Re: (Score:1)
I may be missing something like maybe there's a history behind it but I can't see any reason for the troll mods applied here.
Re: (Score:2)
So? They're not in violation of the license.
More links.. (Score:5, Informative)
I didn't have these handy when I posted this originally.
PDF of the full legal complaint. It's really nicely written (IMHO) and IANAL of course :-).
https://sfconservancy.org/docs... [sfconservancy.org]
Press kit:
https://shoestring.agency/wp-c... [shoestring.agency]
Really nice non-technical write up from sjvn (yeah I know /. is a technical crowd, but it's nice to be able to have something to use to explain to non-technical friends):
https://www.zdnet.com/article/... [zdnet.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Have you actually *read* the GPLv2 ? I'm assuming not based on your statement. The GPLv2 text is here:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/o... [gnu.org]
Please note the following statement copied *DIRECTLY FROM THE TEXT ABOVE*:
"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installat
Should sue for money (Score:4, Insightful)
That is all that Vizio understands. The SFC should find a copyright holder and sue for the same sums that the music industry sues for a downloaded track - for every TV that Vizio has sold. The people at Vizio are crooks, they know what they are doing and think that they can get away with it.
Re: (Score:2)
That is all that Vizio understands. The SFC should find a copyright holder and sue for the same sums that the music industry sues for a downloaded track - for every TV that Vizio has sold. The people at Vizio are crooks, they know what they are doing and think that they can get away with it.
Better yet try to convince consumers to put pressure on stores not to sell. Vizio TVs That would get attention.
So now we defend copyrights? (Score:1)
Seems every time there's an article about someone or some group violating copyright all we hear is how copyright should be done away with or, at the very least, restricted. The same when record or movie producers sue for damages. "Well I wouldn't have bought the song/movie any way so it's not really a lost sale."
If you're going to bitch about one side of copyright you can't talk out the other side of your mouth and point to something like this and say, "Yes, there's been a violation. Now make them pay." I
Re: (Score:2)
You know they aren't actually asking anyone to pay. They're only asking Vizio to cough up the source code.
Re: (Score:2)
You know they aren't actually asking anyone to pay. They're only asking Vizio to cough up the source code.
If we're not going to honor one form of copyright, why honor another?
Re: (Score:2)
They're only asking Vizio to cough up the source code.
Which might be impossible or very expensive for them to do so. The software in a Vizio system is probably made from many components including stuff that has been bought/licensed from elsewhere. Vizio might not have the source to this 'other' software or might not be allowed to distribute it.
Vizio might not want its competitors see how their software works.
Vizio might not want its customers see how their software works - eg how it sends personal information across the web - but does not document so.
Vizio sho
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're going to bitch about one side of copyright you can't talk out the other side of your mouth and point to something like this and say, "Yes, there's been a violation. Now make them pay." If you want someone to pay for this then when people steal movies/movies/software, you make them pay as well.
Absolutely. Whataboutism is lame. Make them pay commensurate to the ill-gotten profits they make.
Vizio and the kid next door torrenting are still unlikely to be in the same league though. If 6 figures for a few movies are correct then 8 or 9 figures should be appropriate here.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're going to bitch about one side of copyright you can't talk out the other side of your mouth and point to something like this and say, "Yes, there's been a violation. Now make them pay."
Yes, you can. There's nothing inconsistent about believing that copyright shouldn't exist, but choosing to make use of it to make the world a better place even though most people use it to make it shittier.
oppose coyright but still use for good? (Score:2)
Mod parent up!
Vizio SmartCast (Score:3)
From TFA
"When we purchased new models, we found that despite our efforts they still had no source code included with the device, nor any offer for source code. People buying these models would never know that there was anything special about the software in these devices, or that they had any rights whatsoever connected with the software on their TVs.”
Having recently bought a Vizio SmartCast and being a bit of a nerd I found myself digging through the menu system looking at the credits and GPL software and license was acknowledged with directions on how to mail to get the appropriate source code. Must be specific to my model or not widely deployed on other models.