9 ms·
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 c
by 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 agoGplv2 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 agoIt would be nice if perma-locked bootloaders were illegal.
- dv_dt 5y agoThat imho should be an extension of right-to-repair (and own/modify)
- squarefoot 5y agoNot 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.
- duskwuff 5y agoI think you're overestimating developer ability/willingness. There's a lot of hardware out there which could in theory have third-party firmware built for it, but which hasn't because it's just too niche for anyone to have bothered, or because there's insufficient public documentation. Most smart TVs, for example, fall into both categories. There are simply too many models for a third-party firmware effort to take off, and documentation on the hardware used in these TVs is usually nonexistent. (And the hardware is often already stretched to its limits on the stock firmware -- implementing "new functions, including codecs" is likely to be impossible.)
- wizzwizz4 5y agoI think you're underestimating the tenacity of hobbyists. Some people hack every device they own, then release the software they wrote to do so; it only takes one or two of these people to write the drivers for a few dozen devices, and then they all run Debian.
- grishka 5y agoThere are many models of smart TVs, but they reuse components and software a lot. I remember rooting my Samsung TV with a universal exploit that worked across something like several years of models.
- colejohnson66 5y agoIsn’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
- kevin_thibedeau 5y ago> 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.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- mmlb 5y agoYou are right that he can't unilaterally relicense the kernel and that it will likely never happen, but Linus is in fact against the GPLv3, see debconf 14 Q&A: https://youtu.be/5PmHRSeA2c8?t=2840 https://youtu.be/5PmHRSeA2c8?t=2840
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- jepler 5y agoAt 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-the-gpl-right-to-install/ 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 not only complete, but that it corresponded to the binaries on the vendors' devices, and that we could install modified versions of the software. This was a standard part of any check to verify GPLv2 compliance. Passing this check was required, then and now, by FSF and Conservancy before distribution rights are restored after a violation." "That position was not controversial when I, along with then FSF counsel (Daniel Ravicher), taught it to lawyers in 2003 and 2004 on FSF's behalf. Nevertheless, today, many act as if this interpretation and intent of GPLv2§3¶2 is a recent and novel phenomena, rather than a long standing position held by all copyleft activists for at least 18 years. Today, most companies and lawyers argue (incorrectly, IMO) that users have no rights to reinstall their GPLv2'd software."
- matheusmoreira 5y agoWould be nice if all corporate exploitation was illegal.
- drran 5y agoPerma-locked bootloaders can be made illegal, if they prevent you, the owner of the device, from patching a security hole in your device. In essence, it's a backdoor mechanism installed by the vendor.
- concordDance 5y ago> too much of it now is a group effort among companies to more efficiently lure users to trade their freedom for functionality Often they don't have more functionality, just actual marketing and discoverability.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- perihelions 5y ago>"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 5y agoAlso not a lawyer, but can't you sue in California over any product sold in California?
- jfrunyon 5y agoSure, 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)
- boomboomsubban 5y agoThe Software Freedom Conservancy is based out of New York, and they are the plaintiffs here.
- jfrunyon 5y ago... and your point is? The Software Freedom Conservancy is a business which can do business in many states and be subject to the jurisdiction of courts in all of them, unlike an individual, who can be resident in only one state. (And even then, an individual could also sue in California if the event being sued over - like a purchase or an accident - occurred in California)
- boomboomsubban 5y agoBeing a resident isn't really a requirement if at most all you need to do to bypass it is form a company anywhere.
- 5y ago
- IshKebab 5y agoI can't see this succeeding because it would have some crazy implications in general.
- vineyardmike 5y agoCrazy positive implications for consumers. California is a pretty good jurisdiction to litigate pro-consumer suits.
- colejohnson66 5y agoGenuily asking: what?
- IshKebab 5y agoIt means anyone can sue for breach of contract if they are a beneficiary in some way, even if they aren't one of the parties of the contract. If you make a deal with the government to provide free school meals and then they underpay you so you stop providing the meals, now every parent can sue you. Doesn't sound quite right. I think it would be better to fix this by having the GPL explicitly grant standing to anyone receiving it. Not a lawyer though so no idea if you can just do that. Maybe not.
- webmaven 5y ago> It means anyone can sue for breach of contract if they are a beneficiary in some way, even if they aren't one of the parties of the contract. If you make a deal with the government to provide free school meals and then they underpay you so you stop providing the meals, now every parent can sue you. Doesn't sound quite right. If you stop providing the meals due to the government's breach of contract, it seems pretty obvious to me that the court would either dismiss the case (possibly with prejudice) and direct the plaintiff to sue the appropriate party, or that the case would be suspended until you and/or the government are done suing each other pending the outcome(s) of the other case(s).
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Wowfunhappy 5y agoWere none of the contributors to the original software willing to participate in the conservatory's case?
- LukeShu 5y agoThat's a good question. The linked press kit says: > not only do multiple copies of the Linux kernel appear in the firmware, other GPL’d and LGPL’d programs were found, including U-Boot, bash, gawk, tar, glibc, and ffmpeg. The copyright for bash, gawk, tar, and glibc is owned by the Free Software Foundation. The FSF requires copyright assignment on contributions specifically so that they can enforce the GPL. So, if the FSF is unwilling to participate in the case, then that would say something very bad about the state of the FSF (or the state of their relationship with Conservancy--perhaps the FSF would prefer to mount their own case separately?). However, I don't believe that to be the case. It is my understanding that Conservancy holds the copyright on parts of the Linux kernel, and is authorized to represent several other copyright holders of the kernel. They should be able to enforce the GPL for the kernel without getting anyone else involved. So to me, this reads as Conservancy intentionally avoiding involving the copyright holders and going for a different strategy, in order to establish precedent and strengthen the GPL. And if that fails, then they could presumably fall back to filing a second lawsuit from the traditional copyright holder perspective. But I would have liked to see this called out and explained explicitly in the press materials, because I'm having to read between the lines here.
- cjbprime 5y agoI'd be surprised if Conservancy holds kernel copyrights directly, but I agree they can represent holders, as I think they have with e.g. Christoph Hellwig vs. VMWare.
- jra_samba 5y agoPrepare to be surprised :-). https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/ https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/ Oh, I may have misunderstood you there, apologies if so. Conservancy can handle compliance and enforcement activities on behalf of more than a dozen Linux copyright holders, but I don't actually know if they hold the copyrights. Sorry if I misunderstood.
- pabs3 5y agoIf this strategy becomes validated by this case, it means that any organisation can bring GPL compliance lawsuits. Hopefully that leads to companies noting their increased potential for liability by multiple less scrupulous actors than SFC and spontaneously coming into compliance.
- GoblinSlayer 5y agoGenerally speaking, GPL can't be enforced by users due to selftermination clause. And when GPL terminates itself, you can't enforce it. For user enforcement we need a license that doesn't terminate itself. --- 8. Termination. You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third paragraph of section 11).
- LukeShu 5y agoNote that for quite a while Conservancy has (and more recently[1] many other copyright holders have) publicly documented that they extend GPLv3's cure provision to their otherwise-GPLv2-licensed code. There are kernel copyright holders who have not consented to this and when you violate the GPL your license to the parts of the code that they own is terminated per the vanilla GPLv2. But the copyrights which Conservancy represents have the cure provision. [1]: discussion at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16628301 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16628301 (2018)
- chillfox 5y agoI guess the interesting thing here is if they are willing to use that as an argument. "You can't sue us because we don't have a license!" I imagine that would make a following case by the actual copyright holders really easy to win.
- wizzwizz4 5y agoUnless it was the actual copyright holders who raised the original case, in which case I think double jeopardy applies.