5 ms·

This doesn't make sense. If Vizo never licensed the software to you under the GPL, you can't say they violated the GPL. The court should not be able to make up

This doesn't make sense. If Vizo never licensed the software to you under the GPL, you can't say they violated the GPL. The court should not be able to make up contracts that don't exist between parties.

MattPalmer1086 11mo ago
The only licence Vizo had to use the GPL software and distribute it to their users required them to make the code available to them on request. If they don't do that, they are in violation of copyright (since nothing else gives them permission to copy and distribute it).
- charcircuit 11mo ago
  This article is not about whether Smartcast TV has all the neccessary licenses to be distributed. It's not the copyright owner of a dependency suing them.
  - microtherion 11mo ago
    They are being sued by the SFC, which has been deputized by the actual copyright holders to act on their behalf: https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/#linux https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/#linux
    - pabs3 11mo ago
      Except in this case, SFC are not suing on behalf of copyright holders, but as a third-party beneficiary of the GPL contract between copyright holders and Vizio.
itopaloglu83 11mo ago
If Vizio used GPL licensed software and did not follow its license rules, then they’re the ones breaking the license terms and GPL licensing of the product was always implied. Not following the license terms have a name, stealing.
- charcircuit 11mo ago
  They are clearly committing copyright infringement, but plenty of a copyright infringement happens in practice and it is tolerated by the copyright owners. This is not what I am objecting to though. I am objecting to the idea that Vizio has a contract with a user to give them the source code of their proprietary software. If Vizio ignore a license, in my mind there is no way for that license to establish a contract between Vizio and a user. How can there be a meeting of minds when Vizio's mind disagrees with the contract.
  - itopaloglu83 11mo ago
    I understand, it’s not a direct contract, but they’re infringing on copyrighted material to create their software and not following what they agreed. Expecting to benefit from copyright in their own product while ignoring the license of all the products they used, that’s what bothers me, it’s hypocrisy. It’s open sourced software, free like speech, not like beer. PS: I didn’t vote on any comment.
    - charcircuit 11mo ago
      >they’re infringing on copyrighted material Sure. >not following what they agreed. They may have never agreed. >that’s what bothers me You can feel that way, but it's up to the copyright owner to decide if they want to go after such an infringement or if they are okay with it.
      - itopaloglu83 11mo ago
        What’s you’re saying is asinine and simply against the GPL terms. Using the GPL licensed software code without following its restrictions is theft. Vizio then should stop using GPL licensed software or reach to a license agreement with them BEFORE selling any product that contains GPL license because that’s the license of the code they’re using.
        charcircuit 11mo ago
dragonwriter 11mo ago
Well, first, yes, you can, if you can establish that you are an intended third-party beneficiary. But, more to the point, that’s not the basis for the tentative ruling under discussion, so its irrelevant to whether the decision makes sense.
gwd 11mo ago
Lots of courts think differently. In particular, Visio already tried to move the case from a state court to a federal court, on the grounds that this is only about copyright (over which apparently only federal courts have jurisdiction). The federal court denied that, saying that there was indeed a contract, and thus it should be sorted out in the state courts. https://sfconservancy.org/news/2022/may/16/vizio-remand-win/ https://sfconservancy.org/news/2022/may/16/vizio-remand-win/
jcarrano 11mo ago
They "conveyed" the software, according to GPL wording. They violation is towards the original software's authors.
- db48x 11mo ago
  That’s true, but the contract thing is also separately true. The TV came with a notice stating that it used GPL’d software and offering to convey the source to anyone who wrote them. That’s a valid contract, which the SFC tried to act on. Vizio rebuffed them, so one of the issues before the court is a literal contract violation.
mytailorisrich 11mo ago
Well... "Plaintiff argues the subject smart TV included a statement in the “License List” menu that it “may contain executable codes and libraries that are subject to the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL), GNU Lesser General License (LGPL) … and other open source licenses. VIZIO offers to provide applicable source code upon request for a processing fee covering the cost of fulfilling the distribution….” (Motion, p. 8.) Plaintiff contends its representative accepted such offer by requesting the applicable source code in a live chat with a Vizio representative. (p. 9; UMFs 8-11.) "
turboponyy 11mo ago
> If Vizo never licensed the software to you under the GPL [...] That may be true. > [...] you can't say they violated the GPL. That does not necessarily follow. If they used GPL-licensed code in their product, they may be obligated to provide the source code to that product's consumer.

MattPalmer1086 11mo ago

The only licence Vizo had to use the GPL software and distribute it to their users required them to make the code available to them on request. If they don't do that, they are in violation of copyright (since nothing else gives them permission to copy and distribute it).

charcircuit 11mo ago
This article is not about whether Smartcast TV has all the neccessary licenses to be distributed. It's not the copyright owner of a dependency suing them.
- microtherion 11mo ago
  They are being sued by the SFC, which has been deputized by the actual copyright holders to act on their behalf: https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/#linux https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/#linux
  - pabs3 11mo ago
    Except in this case, SFC are not suing on behalf of copyright holders, but as a third-party beneficiary of the GPL contract between copyright holders and Vizio.

itopaloglu83 11mo ago

If Vizio used GPL licensed software and did not follow its license rules, then they’re the ones breaking the license terms and GPL licensing of the product was always implied. Not following the license terms have a name, stealing.

charcircuit 11mo ago
They are clearly committing copyright infringement, but plenty of a copyright infringement happens in practice and it is tolerated by the copyright owners. This is not what I am objecting to though. I am objecting to the idea that Vizio has a contract with a user to give them the source code of their proprietary software. If Vizio ignore a license, in my mind there is no way for that license to establish a contract between Vizio and a user. How can there be a meeting of minds when Vizio's mind disagrees with the contract.
- itopaloglu83 11mo ago
  I understand, it’s not a direct contract, but they’re infringing on copyrighted material to create their software and not following what they agreed. Expecting to benefit from copyright in their own product while ignoring the license of all the products they used, that’s what bothers me, it’s hypocrisy. It’s open sourced software, free like speech, not like beer. PS: I didn’t vote on any comment.
  - charcircuit 11mo ago
    >they’re infringing on copyrighted material Sure. >not following what they agreed. They may have never agreed. >that’s what bothers me You can feel that way, but it's up to the copyright owner to decide if they want to go after such an infringement or if they are okay with it.
    - itopaloglu83 11mo ago
      What’s you’re saying is asinine and simply against the GPL terms. Using the GPL licensed software code without following its restrictions is theft. Vizio then should stop using GPL licensed software or reach to a license agreement with them BEFORE selling any product that contains GPL license because that’s the license of the code they’re using.
      - charcircuit 11mo ago

dragonwriter 11mo ago

Well, first, yes, you can, if you can establish that you are an intended third-party beneficiary. But, more to the point, that’s not the basis for the tentative ruling under discussion, so its irrelevant to whether the decision makes sense.

gwd 11mo ago

Lots of courts think differently. In particular, Visio already tried to move the case from a state court to a federal court, on the grounds that this is only about copyright (over which apparently only federal courts have jurisdiction). The federal court denied that, saying that there was indeed a contract, and thus it should be sorted out in the state courts. https://sfconservancy.org/news/2022/may/16/vizio-remand-win/ https://sfconservancy.org/news/2022/may/16/vizio-remand-win/

jcarrano 11mo ago

They "conveyed" the software, according to GPL wording. They violation is towards the original software's authors.

db48x 11mo ago
That’s true, but the contract thing is also separately true. The TV came with a notice stating that it used GPL’d software and offering to convey the source to anyone who wrote them. That’s a valid contract, which the SFC tried to act on. Vizio rebuffed them, so one of the issues before the court is a literal contract violation.

mytailorisrich 11mo ago

Well... "Plaintiff argues the subject smart TV included a statement in the “License List” menu that it “may contain executable codes and libraries that are subject to the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL), GNU Lesser General License (LGPL) … and other open source licenses. VIZIO offers to provide applicable source code upon request for a processing fee covering the cost of fulfilling the distribution….” (Motion, p. 8.) Plaintiff contends its representative accepted such offer by requesting the applicable source code in a live chat with a Vizio representative. (p. 9; UMFs 8-11.) "

turboponyy 11mo ago

> If Vizo never licensed the software to you under the GPL [...] That may be true. > [...] you can't say they violated the GPL. That does not necessarily follow. If they used GPL-licensed code in their product, they may be obligated to provide the source code to that product's consumer.