3 ms·

For the SFC, the code (or rather, entitlement to receive complete corresponding source) has always been the point [1]. I don't think they ever asked for damages

• neilv 11mo ago
  Do you think they could be trying to open up the TV firmware, like when the WRT54G settlement launched what became OpenWrt and other open firmware projects? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linksys_WRT54G_series#Third-party_firmware_projects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linksys_WRT54G_series#Third-pa... That kind of thing is both a deterrent to commercial violation of licenses (unplanned open sourcing), and moves open source forward. Though I also like the idea of monetary penalties large enough to be a deterrent.
  • hn_acker 11mo ago
    > Do you think they could be trying to open up the TV firmware Yes, SFC is indeed trying to open up the software as happened with OpenWrt [1], though in this case the software in question is the operating system instead of the firmware. I think the SFC also wanted to establish a legal precedent about the rights given by the GPLv2 to users. Unfortunately, such a precedent might not be forthcoming [2]. [1] https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46167410 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46167410
  • singpolyma3 11mo ago
    Yes that is the goal
  • hdgvhicv 11mo ago
    Copyright violation for profit by individuals can be 10 Years in prison in the U.K. That’s 10 years of no income. Seems reasonable for a fine of 10 years global revenue for a company.