All the Software Freedom Conservancy wants is for Vizio to release the open-source Linux and software code it's bundled into its TV firmware. Is Vizio going to? Nope.
All the Software Freedom Conservancy wants is for Vizio to release the open-source Linux and software code it's bundled into its TV firmware. Is Vizio going to? Nope.
Vizio doesn't seem to remember the WRT54G. The GPL is pretty damn unambiguous, and I doubt Vizio can succeed where much bigger companies have failed. However you feel about RMS now, the man's...
The GPL is pretty damn unambiguous, and I doubt Vizio can succeed where much bigger companies have failed. However you feel about RMS now, the man's pedantic approach to language is why GPLv2 is still so incredibly powerful despite decades of multiple legal teams trying to work around it.
Vizio is gonna spend a lot of money and fail. And I hope they do. With any luck this could be the breakthrough to flash a replacement OS that I don't hate.
They will lose. From where I sit, it's clear their in-house counsel hasn't figured out yet that the usual "drag it out in court until they run out of money" approach is a pure fail here.
They will lose. From where I sit, it's clear their in-house counsel hasn't figured out yet that the usual "drag it out in court until they run out of money" approach is a pure fail here.
Looking at the SFC's sponsors, I think Redhat/IBM in particular has a very vested interest in keeping the GPL strong. Their business model benefits heavily from it, and I'd wager they'd be more...
Looking at the SFC's sponsors, I think Redhat/IBM in particular has a very vested interest in keeping the GPL strong. Their business model benefits heavily from it, and I'd wager they'd be more than happy to keep this lawsuit going indefinitely.
Vizio is in the wrong here with regards to their handling of the licences involved. However, I'm not so convinced that they are wrong in their specific argument here, even if it seems primarily to...
Vizio is in the wrong here with regards to their handling of the licences involved. However, I'm not so convinced that they are wrong in their specific argument here, even if it seems primarily to be a delay tactic, and it would be helpful to see why SFC argues otherwise.
Not having had time to read their entire argument, the point Vizio appears to be making is that this is a copyright matter, and that even as a contractual matter, the dispute would be between the copyright holder / licensor and licensee, not between the licensee and someone who had purchased the licensee's product. Certainly, by not providing sources to those consumers, they are not satisfying the contracts. But that would seem to be a matter for the licensor to bring up, and I'm not sure why the SFC seems to be arguing otherwise. Of course, this is just a frustration; given the extent of their use, it seems like it would be easy to find copyright holders willing to participate.
However, it appears that Vizio is arguing that this isn't contractual, and is just a copyright case. That would seem to suggest that they're trying to avoid this case by arguing that, actually, they aren't trying to follow the licences involved at all, and are just violating everyone's copyrights? Again, this seems like an ultimately doomed argument, but not one that is clearly wrong. I seem to recall a GPLv2 explanation at one time in the distant past that even explained it explicitly in this way: that you were free to use the software within copyright law (eg, run it, read the code, etc), and only needed the licence to go beyond what copyright would allow (copying, distribution, etc). If that is the case, then isn't 'we don't agree to the licence, so we're not breaking it, we're just infringing copyright' a valid if rather ridiculous argument?
Note that, to contrast with the WRT54G situation, that was pursued by the FSF, which does copyright assignment and has extensive copyrights to ubiquitous free software. The SFC does have projects involved here (eg, BusyBox), but it's not clear that they hold the copyright to any part of the code.
Having read more about the original case, I now realize that there is a difference: the SFC is not including any copyright holders in the case, apparently intentionally, in order to try to...
Having read more about the original case, I now realize that there is a difference: the SFC is not including any copyright holders in the case, apparently intentionally, in order to try to convince courts to agree that consumers, as beneficiaries of the licences, have standing to sue when they are not provided sources, rather than needing the developers to sue. This seems much less certain than pursuing the violations in the usual way, with copyright holders involved, but if successful would be much more convenient.
To that end, Vizio arguing that it violated copyright, not the licences, would mean that the SFC has no standing: in other words, they seem to be admitting guilt for something with harsher penalties, but different injured parties, in order to avoid this particular case.
The other difference is that if this is a copyright matter, Vizio is arguing that it must be heard in federal court, not California.
Do we really have to add a clause along the lines of "The license grants every licensee the right to sue for violation of copyright"(some more lawyering required) to the GPL? Basically, so you...
Do we really have to add a clause along the lines of "The license grants every licensee the right to sue for violation of copyright"(some more lawyering required) to the GPL? Basically, so you don't have to bother me if I wrote GPL code, an asshole made an unpublished edit and you want to see that code.
All the Software Freedom Conservancy wants is for Vizio to release the open-source Linux and software code it's bundled into its TV firmware. Is Vizio going to? Nope.
Vizio doesn't seem to remember the WRT54G.
The GPL is pretty damn unambiguous, and I doubt Vizio can succeed where much bigger companies have failed. However you feel about RMS now, the man's pedantic approach to language is why GPLv2 is still so incredibly powerful despite decades of multiple legal teams trying to work around it.
Vizio is gonna spend a lot of money and fail. And I hope they do. With any luck this could be the breakthrough to flash a replacement OS that I don't hate.
They will lose. From where I sit, it's clear their in-house counsel hasn't figured out yet that the usual "drag it out in court until they run out of money" approach is a pure fail here.
Looking at the SFC's sponsors, I think Redhat/IBM in particular has a very vested interest in keeping the GPL strong. Their business model benefits heavily from it, and I'd wager they'd be more than happy to keep this lawsuit going indefinitely.
Vizio is in the wrong here with regards to their handling of the licences involved. However, I'm not so convinced that they are wrong in their specific argument here, even if it seems primarily to be a delay tactic, and it would be helpful to see why SFC argues otherwise.
Not having had time to read their entire argument, the point Vizio appears to be making is that this is a copyright matter, and that even as a contractual matter, the dispute would be between the copyright holder / licensor and licensee, not between the licensee and someone who had purchased the licensee's product. Certainly, by not providing sources to those consumers, they are not satisfying the contracts. But that would seem to be a matter for the licensor to bring up, and I'm not sure why the SFC seems to be arguing otherwise. Of course, this is just a frustration; given the extent of their use, it seems like it would be easy to find copyright holders willing to participate.
However, it appears that Vizio is arguing that this isn't contractual, and is just a copyright case. That would seem to suggest that they're trying to avoid this case by arguing that, actually, they aren't trying to follow the licences involved at all, and are just violating everyone's copyrights? Again, this seems like an ultimately doomed argument, but not one that is clearly wrong. I seem to recall a GPLv2 explanation at one time in the distant past that even explained it explicitly in this way: that you were free to use the software within copyright law (eg, run it, read the code, etc), and only needed the licence to go beyond what copyright would allow (copying, distribution, etc). If that is the case, then isn't 'we don't agree to the licence, so we're not breaking it, we're just infringing copyright' a valid if rather ridiculous argument?
Note that, to contrast with the WRT54G situation, that was pursued by the FSF, which does copyright assignment and has extensive copyrights to ubiquitous free software. The SFC does have projects involved here (eg, BusyBox), but it's not clear that they hold the copyright to any part of the code.
Having read more about the original case, I now realize that there is a difference: the SFC is not including any copyright holders in the case, apparently intentionally, in order to try to convince courts to agree that consumers, as beneficiaries of the licences, have standing to sue when they are not provided sources, rather than needing the developers to sue. This seems much less certain than pursuing the violations in the usual way, with copyright holders involved, but if successful would be much more convenient.
To that end, Vizio arguing that it violated copyright, not the licences, would mean that the SFC has no standing: in other words, they seem to be admitting guilt for something with harsher penalties, but different injured parties, in order to avoid this particular case.
The other difference is that if this is a copyright matter, Vizio is arguing that it must be heard in federal court, not California.
Do we really have to add a clause along the lines of "The license grants every licensee the right to sue for violation of copyright"(some more lawyering required) to the GPL? Basically, so you don't have to bother me if I wrote GPL code, an asshole made an unpublished edit and you want to see that code.