[HN Gopher] Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit again...
___________________________________________________________________
Software Freedom Conservancy files GPL lawsuit against Vizio
Author : jra_samba
Score : 153 points
Date : 2021-10-19 17:35 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (sfconservancy.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (sfconservancy.org)
| alexarnesen wrote:
| I thought copyright in GPLv2 kicks in once someone is linking? I
| saw Linux Kernel, bash, awk mentioned; but if these were compiled
| into binary assets without any code from the TV, then isn't Vizio
| entitled to sell these TVs without disclosing their own source
| code?
| wmf wrote:
| Nobody's asking for Vizio's code, just the modifications to GPL
| software (e.g. kconfig, non-upstream kernel modules, etc.)
| spamizbad wrote:
| Question: if I sell my old Visio TV that violates the GPL, am I
| now also in violation of the license since I'm redistributing it?
| 10000truths wrote:
| Even if the argument could be made, there would be no practical
| way to enforce it. It's not like Disney is breathing down my
| neck if I "redistribute" their IP by getting paid $50 to dress
| up in a Mickey Mouse costume for a kids birthday party.
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| An especially novel aspect of this lawsuit, quoting the press
| release:
|
| > This approach makes it the first legal case that focuses on the
| rights of individual consumers as third-party beneficiaries of
| the GPL.
|
| > "That's what makes this litigation unique and historic in terms
| of defending consumer rights," says Karen M. Sandler, the
| organization's executive director.
|
| In the past, GPL enforcement has been a cause of action brought
| by the copyright holder. This suit is on behalf of users, as
| beneficiaries of the GPL. If this suit is successful, it'll no
| longer be necessary to prove sufficient standing as a _copyright
| holder_ of GPLed code in order to enforce the license; it 'll
| suffice to show that you're a user who wishes to make use of the
| rights provided under the license.
| [deleted]
| rando832 wrote:
| Gplv2 violations are widespread, we need much much more
| enforcement and more copyleft software, and this could be a
| huge win. Free software's main purpose should not be to be
| proprietarized, too much of it now is a group effort among
| companies to more efficiently lure users to trade their freedom
| for functionality.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| It would be nice if perma-locked bootloaders were illegal.
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| Isn't that the idea of the "TiVoisation" clause in the
| GPLv3? Basically, TiVo released their Linux derivative
| code, but you couldn't actually flash your version. The
| problem is that Linus is staunchly against the GPLv3
| dv_dt wrote:
| That imho should be an extension of right-to-repair (and
| own/modify)
| squarefoot wrote:
| Not just nice, it would be a _huge_ accomplishment. Imagine
| being able to resurrect (as in saving from a landfill) old
| tablets, phones and even smart TVs, or making new ones more
| usable and trustworthy by flashing a lighter OS that doesn
| 't contain adware and spyware, and can be patched to solve
| bugs or implement new functions (including codecs) to give
| the product a longer life. Hardware manufacturers would
| absolutely hate such a scenario, which is why I'm
| pessimistic about that.
| perihelions wrote:
| > _" If this suit is successful, it'll no longer be necessary
| to prove sufficient standing as a copyright holder of GPLed
| code in order to enforce the license;"_
|
| Would such a decision have any usefulness outside of
| California? This specific lawsuit is filed in a California
| state court, against a California defendant.
|
| /not a lawyer
| wmf wrote:
| Also not a lawyer, but can't you sue in California over any
| product sold in California?
| perihelions wrote:
| I believe a non-California defendant could move that suit
| into a federal court ("diversity jurisdiction" isn't it?)
|
| But federal courts don't seem to put too much weight on how
| individual states interpreted a law -- hence my question.
|
| (Same /not-a-lawyer as above)
| jfrunyon wrote:
| Sure, if you live in California. (I think IANAL is a given
| because I don't think any lawyer is giving out legal advice
| on HN)
| [deleted]
| IshKebab wrote:
| I can't see this succeeding because it would have some crazy
| implications in general.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| Crazy positive implications for consumers.
|
| California is a pretty good jurisdiction to litigate pro-
| consumer suits.
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| Genuily asking: what?
| jra_samba wrote:
| Full legal text of the complaint:
|
| https://sfconservancy.org/docs/conservancy-v-vizio-original-...
|
| Press kit:
|
| https://shoestring.agency/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/SFC_Pre...
| WalterGR wrote:
| _Full legal text of the complaint:
|
| https://sfconservancy.org/docs/conservancy-v-vizio-
| original-..._
|
| Paragraphs 37 and 38 list the relevant software packages.
| Strangely the PDF is a scan. The OCR / embedded text isn't
| complete so there are some parts missing below...
|
| 37. Among the computer programs that comprise SmartCast are a
| number of programs 15 subject to the GPLv2:
|
| (a) The Linux kernel. A kernel is the heart of an operating
| system, which all computerized devices, like smart TV s,
| require in order to function. The Linux kernel is one of the
| most popular operating system kernels.
|
| (b) alsa-utils, which is a suite of programs that assist and
| manage ALSA, Linux's audio subsystem.
|
| (c) GNU bash, which is a " shell," a program that allows users
| to interface with the operating system and is required for most
| operating systems.
|
| (d) GNU awk, which is a popular scripting language with many
| uses.
|
| (e) bluez, which is a suite of programs that assist and manage
| Bluetooth for Linux ased devices.
|
| (f) BusyBox, which is a popular "thin footprint" suite of
| utilities for Linux.
|
| (g) coreutils, which is a popular suite of utilities for Linux,
| with a larger "footprint" than BusyBox
|
| 38. Among the computer programs that comprise SmartCast are a
| number of programs subject to the LGPLv2.1:
|
| (a) The GNU C Library, which is a library of resources that
| allows Linux users to program in the popular C and C++
| programming languages. It would be required for any Linux14
| based operating system that wished to take advantage of these
| popular programming languages.
|
| (b)
|
| (c)
|
| (d) hardware.
|
| (e) ffmpeg, which is a suite of libraries for handling audio,
| video, and multimedia. glib, which is a library that
| facilitates programming in C. DirectFB, which is a library that
| allows Linux-based systems to work with video libasound, which
| is a library that helps third-party programs interact with
| ALSA, Linux's audio subsystem.
|
| (f) libelf, which is a library for reading and modifying binary
| files.
|
| (g)
|
| (h) file systems.
|
| (i) libgcrypt, which is a C programming library of encryption
| functions and utilities. libmount, which is a library that
| helps third-party programs interact with Linux libnl, which is
| a suite of libraries related to using netlink, a popular
| network communication protocol.
|
| (j) selinux libraries, which help third-party programs interact
| with selinux.
|
| (k) systemd, which is a large system that manages, organizes
| and handles shutdown and restarting of system services on a
| Linux-based system.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| Good point that Linux kernel is GPL - how can companies sell
| products with an embedded Linux then? They don't seem to be
| publishing sources.
|
| Basically anything IoT more advanced than a thermometer seems
| to be running Linux.
| alittlesalami wrote:
| The Software Freedom Conservancy has a page on exactly
| this:
|
| https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/firmware-
| liber...
| smitop wrote:
| They only need to provide the sources for the kernel, not
| the software running on top of the kernel. Usually they
| _do_ publish the source for their kernel somewhere on their
| website in my experience (although they don 't always
| provide a direct link to it on the product).
| HideousKojima wrote:
| Technically the GPLv2 only requires you to provide source
| on request from someone who received the binaries, it
| doesn't require companies to proactively publish it. I
| think the GPLv3 changes this slightly
| PeterisP wrote:
| GPLv2 requires you to either proactively provide the
| source or proactively provide a written offer to provide
| source on request to any third party (section 3 of the
| GPLv2) - simply distributing binaries without including
| either source or an offer is technically a breach of
| license.
|
| Reacting to requests is not sufficient, you have to
| inform the recipient that they actually are entitled to
| make those requests and provide a promise that those
| requests will be honored.
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| It's scanned because those are the filed copied (with
| signatures), not the (literal) preprint.
| belorn wrote:
| This looks to be a major change in the legal strategy behind GPL.
| In the past the focus has been on copyright claims by copyright
| holders, but as recent cases has shown in Germany and France,
| those has faced some rather strange setbacks. Germany don't seem
| to want to recognize copyright holders that only contributed a
| part of a larger work, which is basically all copyright holders
| for larger FOSS projects. In France they seems to define GPL as
| being under contract law and not under copyright law.
|
| In this new case, the SFC is arguing a case in the context of
| third-party beneficiary which is under contract law and not
| copyright law. It seems like a bit of an long-shot, but if won it
| could mean a major change in interpreting GPL as a contract
| rather than a copyright license. I would guess that it also would
| change their strategy in other countries if won.
| zucker42 wrote:
| It seems strange to me that they'd adopt this strategy in the
| U.S. because of past failures in other countries. Gplv2 makes
| pretty clear it's a copyright license, so I see no reason it
| would be interpreted under contract law in the U.S., and as a
| layperson it seems unlikely that SFC would have standing in
| this case. Has a third party beneficiary ever been held to have
| standing in a copyright case?
| belorn wrote:
| It is strange, but I have seen in novel court cases where
| cases in other countries are used as an example. It is
| possible that they want the court to either confirm that GPL
| should be treated as a copyright license and not a contract,
| or that GPL can be seen as a contract in which users has a
| third-party beneficiary role. When they have that ruling they
| can use it as an example in countries where a gpl case has
| yet to be tested. It is also possible that they simply are
| testing something new when other approaches have failed.
|
| According to the press kit, the case is claimed to be unique.
| InTheArena wrote:
| You would think that if Vizio was hijacking code from GPL'd
| sources, their firmware on TVs would be better.
| wmf wrote:
| As the old saying goes, you can write bad code in any language
| or on top of any libraries. SmartCast is sooooo slow.
| pacoWebConsult wrote:
| I need to reboot my Vizio TV weekly through a hidden system
| menu to fix audio desync issues. Simply power cycling from
| the remote does not work, as far as I can tell that's a sleep
| mode. Absolutely terrible device and I will not be going back
| to Vizio in the future.
| phkahler wrote:
| They're still using pulseaudio and not pipewire?
| michaelmrose wrote:
| Why would a TV be shipping beta software?
|
| I shouldn't be surprised if it was alsa alone. Shall we
| instead ssh into our tv to kill and restart pulse?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-19 23:00 UTC)