2 ms·

SFC are the same as FSF effectively, or even better. Their GPL lawsuit against Vizio for example is brilliant, they are suing as a third-party beneficiary of th

by pabs3 1y ago

SFC are the same as FSF effectively, or even better. Their GPL lawsuit against Vizio for example is brilliant, they are suing as a third-party beneficiary of the GPL, rather than as a copyright holder. If they win then it means any recipient of GPLed binaries can sue for compliance. https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html They are also the only folks doing GPL compliance work for the Linux kernel and hardware vendors.

sokoloff 1y ago
> If they win then it means any recipient of GPLed binaries can sue for compliance. I hope they win the case (meaning, I think it's both morally and legally correct), but I hope that the conclusion of the case is not what this sentence says. I don't want "company uses GPL software and takes pains to not distribute it [they run it only internally]; disgruntled employee finds a way to smuggle a copy of the binaries out, gives that copy to someone else; now that someone else can now demand enforcement of the GPL terms" to be legally supported. To me, that's entirely different from "I use GPL software to make a TV and I sell that TV to anyone who will buy it." In that case, any buyer of the TV should be entitled to use the terms in clause 3 & 6 of the license and receive the source code that's covered by GPLv2. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html (clause numbers above refer to this license)
- wizzwizz4 1y ago
  That's not what "recipient" means: it's a term of art. If I want the source code to your private fork of my GPL'd software, and I see your old laptop on Craig's List, I can't buy the laptop, recover the undeleted binaries from the hard drive, then sue you for the source; this ruling wouldn't affect that.

2 ms·

SFC are the same as FSF effectively, or even better. Their GPL lawsuit against Vizio for example is brilliant, they are suing as a third-party beneficiary of th

by pabs3 1y ago

sokoloff 1y ago
> If they win then it means any recipient of GPLed binaries can sue for compliance. I hope they win the case (meaning, I think it's both morally and legally correct), but I hope that the conclusion of the case is not what this sentence says. I don't want "company uses GPL software and takes pains to not distribute it [they run it only internally]; disgruntled employee finds a way to smuggle a copy of the binaries out, gives that copy to someone else; now that someone else can now demand enforcement of the GPL terms" to be legally supported. To me, that's entirely different from "I use GPL software to make a TV and I sell that TV to anyone who will buy it." In that case, any buyer of the TV should be entitled to use the terms in clause 3 & 6 of the license and receive the source code that's covered by GPLv2. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html (clause numbers above refer to this license)
- wizzwizz4 1y ago
  That's not what "recipient" means: it's a term of art. If I want the source code to your private fork of my GPL'd software, and I see your old laptop on Craig's List, I can't buy the laptop, recover the undeleted binaries from the hard drive, then sue you for the source; this ruling wouldn't affect that.