Judge hints Vizio TV buyers may have rights to source code licensed under GPL(www.theregister.com)
107 pointsby pabs37 hours ago3 comments
  • remix2000an hour ago
    Am I misled in thinking that if this weren't mere IP trolling with no legal or even factual basis, SFC would've already thought to sue the biggest fish, i.e. Amazon, as they aren't publishing full Linux kernel sources as used in Kindles inside the "source releases", most notably the REAGL part of the EPDC driver…
    • poofsoda40 minutes ago
      A common strategy is to first establish precedent by successfully suing smaller / less deep-pocketed entities, and then using that victory to compel more resourced organizations to comply. When SFC brought this lawsuit, Vizio was an independent company and much smaller than Amazon. Of course, its purchase by Walmart in 2024 changes that a bit—but before then, easier for SFC to face Vizio’s legal team than Amazon’s.
  • gnabgib6 hours ago
    Discussion (201 points, 12 days ago, 34 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46166994
  • charcircuit2 hours ago
    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.
    • MattPalmer10862 hours 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).

    • dragonwriter2 hours 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.

    • itopaloglu832 hours 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.

      • charcircuitan hour 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.
        • plufzan hour ago
          Isn’t it more that they have a contract with the developers of the GPL:ed code? But sure they can decide to break that contract and take the consequences of committing copyright infringement.
        • itopaloglu83an hour 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.

          • charcircuitan hour 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.