23 ms·

Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio

347 points by jra_samba 5y ago

jra_samba 5y ago
Full legal text of the complaint: https://sfconservancy.org/docs/conservancy-v-vizio-original-complaint-2021-10-19.pdf https://sfconservancy.org/docs/conservancy-v-vizio-original-... Press kit: https://shoestring.agency/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/SFC_PressKit_10-19-2021_v1.pdf https://shoestring.agency/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/SFC_Pre...
- WalterGR 5y ago
  Full legal text of the complaint: https://sfconservancy.org/docs/conservancy-v-vizio-original-complaint-2021-10-19.pdf 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 5y ago
    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 5y ago
      The Software Freedom Conservancy has a page on exactly this: https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/firmware-liberation.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/firmware-liber...
    - HideousKojima 5y ago
      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 5y ago
        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.
        bluGill 5y ago
        Back around 2012 my company was preparing an embedded system. The day the license was added one of our tester found the section about sending $5 to whatever address to get that source code. He sent the letter with his $5 and it came back return to sender. Even though this was an internal only release (most of the functions weren't even written yet) our lawyers made us go through the entire recall process to replace all the code the testers were working with - to show good faith just in case something more happened.
JoshTriplett 5y ago
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.
- rando832 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    It would be nice if perma-locked bootloaders were illegal.
    - dv_dt 5y ago
      That imho should be an extension of right-to-repair (and own/modify)
    - squarefoot 5y ago
      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.
InTheArena 5y ago
You would think that if Vizio was hijacking code from GPL'd sources, their firmware on TVs would be better.
- phkahler 5y ago
  They're still using pulseaudio and not pipewire?
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    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?
- wmf 5y ago
  As the old saying goes, you can write bad code in any language or on top of any libraries. SmartCast is sooooo slow.
  - pacoWebConsult 5y ago
    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.
- vadfa 5y ago
  Are you suggesting that GPL'd code is intrinsically better than code licenced under other licences? Do you have any numbers on this?
belorn 5y ago
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 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    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.
    - zucker42 5y ago
      > I have seen in novel court cases where cases in other countries are used as an example Do you mean novel court cases in the U.S. referencing cases from other countries? My impression was the U.S. was loath to base legal decisions on those from other countries (with the exception of British common law from before U.S. independence). Contrast this to Europe where the EU has adopted common European courts. It would be less surprising if you were talking about European courts cross-referencing each other. I just don't know why they'd choose this strategy, except as a hail mary to create a new standing doctrine for software license. Has suing on behalf of the copyright holders proven insufficient in the U.S.?
alexarnesen 5y ago
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 5y ago
  Nobody's asking for Vizio's code, just the modifications to GPL software (e.g. kconfig, non-upstream kernel modules, etc.)
- hyproxia 5y ago
  No, the GPL always kicks in once you distribute binaries without providing a way to obtain their sources.
- wyldfire 5y ago
  It's kinda simple for the most part. If you distribute binaries of a GPLd software product, you are obligated to distribute/make available the corresponding sources (and inform recipient that the sources are available). print it on a slip of paper, hide it in an obscure menu item, make it a click through, but something constituting "informing" should happen. It doesn't matter if you made a derivative work of the source code or not. If you ship binaries, you should ship the source too.
spamizbad 5y ago
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 5y ago
  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.
  - sam_lowry_ 5y ago
    That sounds like a possibility in a not so distant future. Do not forget that paying a murky intermediary just to perform popular songs was unheard of some 60 years ago.
  - bluGill 5y ago
    > 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. If they find out about it they will. Trademark law requires that they do. I know of a few that have gotten warnings about such things - they stopped doing it on the warning and so it didn't go farther.
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    If you're advertising such services and Disney catches wind of this, they will do their best to shut this service down.
  - teddyh 5y ago
    That’s trademarks, not copyright. You’re not making a copy of the costume.
- gpm 5y ago
  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.
hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
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 like 99% of all SaaS products when it comes to backend services), I don't need to share my code. But if I release a hardware product and by definition I need to ship that code to end-users, then I do need to share my code. Just seems to be an incentive to make more and more stuff "subscription based" with a backend service. Though, due to other economic incentives businesses want to do that anyway, so perhaps my point is moot.
- spijdar 5y ago
  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.
- bluGill 5y ago
  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 changes needed to BSD code. Most of our changes will be contributed back - only changes that are actually things that matter to us will be withheld and those are not part of open source projects to anyway)
  - Seirdy 5y ago
    The point of copyleft licenses is to make it hard to make proprietary software and easy to make free software. It sounds like they're working as intended. My understanding is that this suit is partly on the grounds of Visio not releasing modifications to copylefted code. The MPL and LGPL have the same requirements; is not being able to use LGPL, GPL, AGPL, MPL, or CeCILL-licensed software really harder than compliance? Stories like this just make me all the more convinced that the right approach is to make software a commoditized complement of a service; software is not as scarce a resource as labor.
qwerty456127 5y ago
Every time I fast-read this as Software Freedom Conspiracy. I would probably love such a conspiracy to exist though :-)
pabs3 5y ago
So Visio TVs run systemd, I wonder which distro they are based on? Yocto?
pabs3 5y ago
Hmm, there are some allegations of insider trading by the Visio CTO on LWN: https://lwn.net/Articles/873359/ https://lwn.net/Articles/873359/
- wmf 5y ago
  I don't think GPL compliance is worth quitting your job (or being pushed out) over.
pabs3 5y ago
I wonder if Kodi will be able to run on Vizio TVs if the lawsuit succeeds and all the code gets released and upstreamed.
- franga2000 5y ago
  That's rather unlikely. Even if you had all the source code, not just the GPL parts, and were able to build and package the firmware in a way the TV would be able to accept, they're probably using some form of build signing to prevent that. But if you want to use Kodi, you likely already have some kind of media server, so something like Jellyfin/Emby/Plex wouldn't be too much more work and is definitely within the realm of possibility. SmartCast apps are just websites and Vizio gives you a companion JavaScript library for interacting with the TV and getting commands from the remote that could be bolted onto Jellyfin/whatever. Documentation is likely only available to big developers under an NDA, but the API is not exactly difficult to figure out (I can't give any further details due to an NDA completely urelated to Vizio :D)

347 points by jra_samba 5y ago

Full legal text of the complaint: https://sfconservancy.org/docs/conservancy-v-vizio-original-complaint-2021-10-19.pdf https://sfconservancy.org/docs/conservancy-v-vizio-original-... Press kit: https://shoestring.agency/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/SFC_PressKit_10-19-2021_v1.pdf https://shoestring.agency/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/SFC_Pre...

WalterGR 5y ago
Full legal text of the complaint: https://sfconservancy.org/docs/conservancy-v-vizio-original-complaint-2021-10-19.pdf 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 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    The Software Freedom Conservancy has a page on exactly this: https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/firmware-liberation.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/firmware-liber...
  - HideousKojima 5y ago
    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 5y ago
      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.
      - bluGill 5y ago
        Back around 2012 my company was preparing an embedded system. The day the license was added one of our tester found the section about sending $5 to whatever address to get that source code. He sent the letter with his $5 and it came back return to sender. Even though this was an internal only release (most of the functions weren't even written yet) our lawyers made us go through the entire recall process to replace all the code the testers were working with - to show good faith just in case something more happened.

JoshTriplett 5y ago

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.

rando832 5y ago
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 5y ago
  It would be nice if perma-locked bootloaders were illegal.
  - dv_dt 5y ago
    That imho should be an extension of right-to-repair (and own/modify)
  - squarefoot 5y ago
    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.

InTheArena 5y ago

You would think that if Vizio was hijacking code from GPL'd sources, their firmware on TVs would be better.

phkahler 5y ago
They're still using pulseaudio and not pipewire?
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  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?
wmf 5y ago
As the old saying goes, you can write bad code in any language or on top of any libraries. SmartCast is sooooo slow.
- pacoWebConsult 5y ago
  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.
vadfa 5y ago
Are you suggesting that GPL'd code is intrinsically better than code licenced under other licences? Do you have any numbers on this?

belorn 5y ago

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 5y ago
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 5y ago
  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.
  - zucker42 5y ago
    > I have seen in novel court cases where cases in other countries are used as an example Do you mean novel court cases in the U.S. referencing cases from other countries? My impression was the U.S. was loath to base legal decisions on those from other countries (with the exception of British common law from before U.S. independence). Contrast this to Europe where the EU has adopted common European courts. It would be less surprising if you were talking about European courts cross-referencing each other. I just don't know why they'd choose this strategy, except as a hail mary to create a new standing doctrine for software license. Has suing on behalf of the copyright holders proven insufficient in the U.S.?

alexarnesen 5y ago

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 5y ago
Nobody's asking for Vizio's code, just the modifications to GPL software (e.g. kconfig, non-upstream kernel modules, etc.)
hyproxia 5y ago
No, the GPL always kicks in once you distribute binaries without providing a way to obtain their sources.
wyldfire 5y ago
It's kinda simple for the most part. If you distribute binaries of a GPLd software product, you are obligated to distribute/make available the corresponding sources (and inform recipient that the sources are available). print it on a slip of paper, hide it in an obscure menu item, make it a click through, but something constituting "informing" should happen. It doesn't matter if you made a derivative work of the source code or not. If you ship binaries, you should ship the source too.

spamizbad 5y ago

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 5y ago
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.
- sam_lowry_ 5y ago
  That sounds like a possibility in a not so distant future. Do not forget that paying a murky intermediary just to perform popular songs was unheard of some 60 years ago.
- bluGill 5y ago
  > 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. If they find out about it they will. Trademark law requires that they do. I know of a few that have gotten warnings about such things - they stopped doing it on the warning and so it didn't go farther.
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  If you're advertising such services and Disney catches wind of this, they will do their best to shut this service down.
- teddyh 5y ago
  That’s trademarks, not copyright. You’re not making a copy of the costume.
gpm 5y ago
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.

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago

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 like 99% of all SaaS products when it comes to backend services), I don't need to share my code. But if I release a hardware product and by definition I need to ship that code to end-users, then I do need to share my code. Just seems to be an incentive to make more and more stuff "subscription based" with a backend service. Though, due to other economic incentives businesses want to do that anyway, so perhaps my point is moot.

spijdar 5y ago
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.
bluGill 5y ago
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 changes needed to BSD code. Most of our changes will be contributed back - only changes that are actually things that matter to us will be withheld and those are not part of open source projects to anyway)
- Seirdy 5y ago
  The point of copyleft licenses is to make it hard to make proprietary software and easy to make free software. It sounds like they're working as intended. My understanding is that this suit is partly on the grounds of Visio not releasing modifications to copylefted code. The MPL and LGPL have the same requirements; is not being able to use LGPL, GPL, AGPL, MPL, or CeCILL-licensed software really harder than compliance? Stories like this just make me all the more convinced that the right approach is to make software a commoditized complement of a service; software is not as scarce a resource as labor.

qwerty456127 5y ago

Every time I fast-read this as Software Freedom Conspiracy. I would probably love such a conspiracy to exist though :-)

pabs3 5y ago

So Visio TVs run systemd, I wonder which distro they are based on? Yocto?

pabs3 5y ago

Hmm, there are some allegations of insider trading by the Visio CTO on LWN: https://lwn.net/Articles/873359/ https://lwn.net/Articles/873359/

wmf 5y ago
I don't think GPL compliance is worth quitting your job (or being pushed out) over.

pabs3 5y ago

I wonder if Kodi will be able to run on Vizio TVs if the lawsuit succeeds and all the code gets released and upstreamed.

franga2000 5y ago
That's rather unlikely. Even if you had all the source code, not just the GPL parts, and were able to build and package the firmware in a way the TV would be able to accept, they're probably using some form of build signing to prevent that. But if you want to use Kodi, you likely already have some kind of media server, so something like Jellyfin/Emby/Plex wouldn't be too much more work and is definitely within the realm of possibility. SmartCast apps are just websites and Vizio gives you a companion JavaScript library for interacting with the TV and getting commands from the remote that could be bolted onto Jellyfin/whatever. Documentation is likely only available to big developers under an NDA, but the API is not exactly difficult to figure out (I can't give any further details due to an NDA completely urelated to Vizio :D)