4 ms·

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

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 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo ago
    And every youtuber should get a license for the video games they show, and every X user should get a license for the memes they upload.
    - db48x 10mo ago
      Many games these days come with explicit terms allowing streaming of the game content, including the music. But this, and your argument, is not really very related to the case at hand. In addition to the alleged GPL violations, there is a real contract dispute here. Vizio also included a written offer of source code to the GPLd components of their software with the television. The SFC tried to avail themselves of that offer by writing to the address given, but Vizio denied their request. It’s a straight forward open and shut contract case: Vizio made a credible offer (and thus created a contract) and then failed to uphold their end of the deal.
    - itopaloglu83 10mo ago
      Bunch of YouTubers making some videos don’t change the copyright law, and a bad example doesn’t negate the fact that Vizio stole GPL licensed software by not abiding with the terms.
    - pabs3 10mo ago
      Debian previously got legal advice that screenshots (and presumably video) are derivative works of the apps/games that they are of, but that production/distribution of them under fair use doctrine may be allowed. https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/1218244323.4240.7.camel@chianamo/firsthit https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/1218244323.4240.7.came... The memes might be infringement though, but no-one cares to enforce copyright there.
db48x 10mo ago
In this specific case there _is_ a direct contract independent of the GPL. 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.

charcircuit 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo ago
  And every youtuber should get a license for the video games they show, and every X user should get a license for the memes they upload.
  - db48x 10mo ago
    Many games these days come with explicit terms allowing streaming of the game content, including the music. But this, and your argument, is not really very related to the case at hand. In addition to the alleged GPL violations, there is a real contract dispute here. Vizio also included a written offer of source code to the GPLd components of their software with the television. The SFC tried to avail themselves of that offer by writing to the address given, but Vizio denied their request. It’s a straight forward open and shut contract case: Vizio made a credible offer (and thus created a contract) and then failed to uphold their end of the deal.
  - itopaloglu83 10mo ago
    Bunch of YouTubers making some videos don’t change the copyright law, and a bad example doesn’t negate the fact that Vizio stole GPL licensed software by not abiding with the terms.
  - pabs3 10mo ago
    Debian previously got legal advice that screenshots (and presumably video) are derivative works of the apps/games that they are of, but that production/distribution of them under fair use doctrine may be allowed. https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/1218244323.4240.7.camel@chianamo/firsthit https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/1218244323.4240.7.came... The memes might be infringement though, but no-one cares to enforce copyright there.

db48x 10mo ago

In this specific case there _is_ a direct contract independent of the GPL. 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.