4 ms·

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.
cjensen 5y ago
Yes absolutely. You would be redistributing the software with the TV. That said, I can't imagine anyone would actually file a lawsuit in a situation like this. More worrying is whether Costco and Walmart could be sued under this theory. Vizio sells very few TVs directly.
- hbyouffav 5y ago
  This comment is pretty much entirely wrong due to first sale considerations, as a neighbor comment points out. It’s also a good cautionary tale for understanding your legal obligations regarding software licensing from an Internet comment. For the purposes of only this context, in which we are deliberating who is infringing on the GPL software blah blah, Vizio sells all of their televisions directly. The act happens when Vizio is paid for the product and never again. With very few exceptions, everyone with a stake in the software on that television loses their rights completely once the television is legally sold to a distributor. Nobody from then on is liable for the licensing structure of the software; in the eyes of the (American) law, the television is now a “thing” to dispose of as you wish and no more. That is impactful to both trademark and copyright law but doesn’t necessarily speak to, say, reverse engineering (i.e., DMCA). The scenarios you’re describing aren’t hypothetical and routinely happen in commerce, and they are well-trodden ground legally. If they went the way you’re theorizing, too, you’d never be able to legally sell or loan a book to a friend. Your ability to do that is the exact subject you’re discussing.
  - cjensen 5y ago
    There is no "first sale" for a non-transferrable software license -- even when you get it as a part of a physical good. You are confusing licensing with copyright, which is a different thing entirely. When the second sale occurs, the seller must still obey the terms of the software license, which means the seller must give the end-user a full license which includes the ability to demand the source. If it were otherwise, the GPL would be meaningless. Instead of the many BusyBox lawsuits, the companies could have "sold" their boxes, "bought" them back, then had no GPL obligations. Lastly, without the GPL you have no software license and have no right to run the software.
esjeon 5y ago
If you didn't get any proper license notice from the seller or the vendor, I'm pretty sure you're not responsible. There's just no simple way to find out if GPL-ed software is running inside a commercial device. Even worse, most vendors simply disallow analyzing their software in the first place.
teddyh 5y ago
Wouldn’t that fall under the first-sale doctrine? Once a copy is created, it is legal to sell that copy. It is the act of copying itself which might not fulfill the obligations of the license and might therefore break copyright law. I.e. it is the factory making TVs which is at fault here, not people re-selling TVs.

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.

cjensen 5y ago

Yes absolutely. You would be redistributing the software with the TV. That said, I can't imagine anyone would actually file a lawsuit in a situation like this. More worrying is whether Costco and Walmart could be sued under this theory. Vizio sells very few TVs directly.

hbyouffav 5y ago
This comment is pretty much entirely wrong due to first sale considerations, as a neighbor comment points out. It’s also a good cautionary tale for understanding your legal obligations regarding software licensing from an Internet comment. For the purposes of only this context, in which we are deliberating who is infringing on the GPL software blah blah, Vizio sells all of their televisions directly. The act happens when Vizio is paid for the product and never again. With very few exceptions, everyone with a stake in the software on that television loses their rights completely once the television is legally sold to a distributor. Nobody from then on is liable for the licensing structure of the software; in the eyes of the (American) law, the television is now a “thing” to dispose of as you wish and no more. That is impactful to both trademark and copyright law but doesn’t necessarily speak to, say, reverse engineering (i.e., DMCA). The scenarios you’re describing aren’t hypothetical and routinely happen in commerce, and they are well-trodden ground legally. If they went the way you’re theorizing, too, you’d never be able to legally sell or loan a book to a friend. Your ability to do that is the exact subject you’re discussing.
- cjensen 5y ago
  There is no "first sale" for a non-transferrable software license -- even when you get it as a part of a physical good. You are confusing licensing with copyright, which is a different thing entirely. When the second sale occurs, the seller must still obey the terms of the software license, which means the seller must give the end-user a full license which includes the ability to demand the source. If it were otherwise, the GPL would be meaningless. Instead of the many BusyBox lawsuits, the companies could have "sold" their boxes, "bought" them back, then had no GPL obligations. Lastly, without the GPL you have no software license and have no right to run the software.

esjeon 5y ago

If you didn't get any proper license notice from the seller or the vendor, I'm pretty sure you're not responsible. There's just no simple way to find out if GPL-ed software is running inside a commercial device. Even worse, most vendors simply disallow analyzing their software in the first place.

teddyh 5y ago

Wouldn’t that fall under the first-sale doctrine? Once a copy is created, it is legal to sell that copy. It is the act of copying itself which might not fulfill the obligations of the license and might therefore break copyright law. I.e. it is the factory making TVs which is at fault here, not people re-selling TVs.