3 ms·

I'm usually rather scathing of test cases, because they allow more affluent parties to exert undue influence on legal precedent. However, in this scenario I hav

I'm usually rather scathing of test cases, because they allow more affluent parties to exert undue influence on legal precedent. However, in this scenario I have nothing but congratulations to offer to the Software Freedom Conservancy: they took on a party several times their size, seeking resolution of a clear-cut GPL violation, and - most importantly - in a way that seems to me entirely compatible with the spirit of the GPL. If one reads the articles written by the progenital big cheeses of the early Free Software Foundation (such figures as Richard Stallman, Eben Moglen and even Bradley Kuhn of the SFC himself), it's clear both from the legalese and the marketing slogans that user empowerment was the intention. Those old articles don't give me the impression that enforcement the GPL was ever supposed to be a privilege limited to the software author, even if this was the most conventional situation for copyright infringement cases and thus the only legally viable action. I'd posit that the SFC are being lenient, even generous with their legal action against Vizio. Suing to enforce the GPL 3.0 rather than version 2.0 would have been slightly more so, considering the "cure within 30 days" provision introduced in the GPL 3.0 family. But that is all but irrelevant considering Vizio's long-standing disregard for copyleft license compliance.

bonzini 3y ago
They can't sue to enforce GPLv3, because Linux isn't under a "GPLv2 or later" license. However, Conservancy established "Principles of Community-oriented Enforcement" (https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.htm...), and these include extending the 30 days provision to GPLv2-only works. This is a concession by Conservancy and not a requirement of the license, but it's a part of the Principles that has been widely lauded and adopted by others including Red Hat (https://www.redhat.com/en/about/gplv3-enforcement-statement https://www.redhat.com/en/about/gplv3-enforcement-statement).
- richardfontana 3y ago
  The lawsuit does not ask for source code solely for the kernel, but also for several userspace components under GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 (at least some of which are at least in large part under "or-later" licensing). They don't recite any noncompliance wrt any *GPLv3 components, perhaps (though I'm just guessing) because Vizio doesn't include any in their TVs.
  - bonzini 3y ago
    > also for several userspace components True, though from the filing it's clear that Linux is the most interesting to them (it's the only one that is described separately, in paragraphs 41-45 of the complaint).

bonzini 3y ago

They can't sue to enforce GPLv3, because Linux isn't under a "GPLv2 or later" license. However, Conservancy established "Principles of Community-oriented Enforcement" (https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.htm...), and these include extending the 30 days provision to GPLv2-only works. This is a concession by Conservancy and not a requirement of the license, but it's a part of the Principles that has been widely lauded and adopted by others including Red Hat (https://www.redhat.com/en/about/gplv3-enforcement-statement https://www.redhat.com/en/about/gplv3-enforcement-statement).

richardfontana 3y ago
The lawsuit does not ask for source code solely for the kernel, but also for several userspace components under GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 (at least some of which are at least in large part under "or-later" licensing). They don't recite any noncompliance wrt any *GPLv3 components, perhaps (though I'm just guessing) because Vizio doesn't include any in their TVs.
- bonzini 3y ago
  > also for several userspace components True, though from the filing it's clear that Linux is the most interesting to them (it's the only one that is described separately, in paragraphs 41-45 of the complaint).