Judge Hints Vizio TV Buyers May Have Rights To Source Code Licensed Under GPL

A California judge signaled support for forcing Vizio to provide the full source code for its SmartCast TV software after finding a contractual obligation under the GPL. If upheld, the case could strengthen users' rights to modify GPL-licensed software embedded in consumer electronics. The Register reports: The legal complaint from the Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) seeks access to the SmartCast source code so that Vizio customers can make changes and improvements to the platform, something that ought to be possible for code distributed under the GPL. On Thursday, California Superior Court Judge Sandy Leal issued a tentative ruling in advance of a hearing, indicating support for part of SFC's legal challenge. The tentative ruling is not a final decision, but it signals the judge's inclination to grant the SFC's motion for summary adjudication, at least in part.

"The tentative ruling [PDF] grants SFC's motion on the issue that a direct contract was made between SFC and Vizio when SFC's systems administrator, Paul Visscher, requested the source code to a TV that SFC has purchased," the SFC said in a blog post. "This contract obligated Vizio to provide SFC the complete and corresponding source code." [...]

Karen Sandler, executive director of the SFC, told The Register in an email that the hearing went well, though Vizio's legal counsel "stridently disagreed" with the legal analysis in the tentative ruling. "Judge Leal said she would take the matter 'under submission' which means she will think about it further," Sandler said. "After the Court went off the record, Leal's clerk specifically verified the Court reporter could provide an expedited transcript, so Leal will likely review the hearing transcript soon." Sandler expects Leal will examine the filings again before issuing her opinion, which is likely to be issued in the next few weeks.

just run to corrupt SCOTUS

[zeiche]

corrupt SCOTUS will fix everything in favor of republicans and large corporations.

Re: just run to corrupt SCOTUS

[reanjr]

A copyright case with little impact outside the two parties? Not the type of case they have time for.

Re:

[divide overflow]

A copyright case with little impact outside the two parties?

There are a lot of corporations that are going to watch the outcome of this case very carefully as they want to continue to use open source code freely without releasing their own code to be examined and/or used by others.
There is a lot of IP riding on the outcome of this and similar decisions.

Re:

[divide overflow]

Most corporations don't use GPL code

Then they aren't affected. Full stop.

Vizio fucked up big here, but the courts could fuck up big too by not recognizing how insanely important a single GPL case like this can be

This is true. So the courts shouldn't fuck up. Shouldn't need to say this as it is essentially a truism.

The GPL/AGPL are a good way to keep corporate hands off your code

It's only as good as the enforcement mechanism.

A bad ruling could destroy that

Any number of things could destroy that...bad rulings, bad enforcement, graft, political interference, ignorant or malevolent public servants, ignorant or malevolent jurors just to name a few.

For the law to work properly everything that enables it has to work properly. It's a moderately fragile system that require co

Re: just run to corrupt SCOTUS

[drinkypoo]

It's not impossible, but it would be real hard for SCROTUS to fuck up the GPL without also fucking up copyright in ways that the copyright cartel would not be pleased with.

Re:

[sg_oneill]

Im actually not a fan of the AGPL at all. I think its intention is noble, but in practice it tends to get used as a shareware license instead of a free software license.

The GPL is very clear about its mandate. You can do whatever you want with this code, as long as you dont go distributing it, and if you do distribute it, here are your responsibilities.

The AGPL however violates GPLs freedom 0 , the right to USE the software however you wish (as long as you dont distribute it without source and a few other d

Re:

[dfghjk]

"The GPL is very clear about its mandate."

And what is that? Before you answer, maybe look up what a mandate is.

Re:

[sodul]

Your CI/CD checks are usually not able to detect that a rogue Dev uploaded the GPL code directly under source control alongside the private code.

Most developers just want to get their assigned features out of the door ASAP. If the CI checks will prevent linking to a GPL library, they can just remove the copyright headers in the files and dump them alongside their changes. They are then promoted for getting stuff done all while the company has now an obfuscated liability.

This is also a big security risk, bec

Re:

[dfghjk]

"...ignoring how coding LLMs might be reproducing a good amount of GPL code anyway..."

Reproducing is an interesting choice of words. All that matters is if the license is violated.

Re:

[SumDog]

They don't store actual copies of any code (unless they're using a RAG store). They are trained on code that changes weights in a model of tokens (pieces of words; pieces of code fragments). So "reproducing" is an accurate word. I'm not a fan of Random Word Generators (LLMs) at all, but that because I make it a point to understand how they work. Most developers use them without understanding the basics of embedding spaces, tokenization and context windows .. all of which are essential of understanding the l

GPL upheld in this case

[unixisc]

This judge's ruling seems to uphold the GPL as it stands. As someone else mentioned above, it's doubtful that SCOTUS will intervene

Right now, Linux is more widely used than GPL, which seems to contradict your claim that most corporations don't touch GPL

Re:

[Luthair]

Maybe Thomas needs a new bus.

Re:

[easyTree]

corrupt SCOTUS will fix everything in favor of republicans and large corporations.

This will self-correct once the campaign donations he requests become so onerous they're worse than the problem donors want fixed. Free market wooh yeah *fist pump*

Completely backwards

[Tschaine]

I choose my last TV largely because I wanted as little software on it as possible - just a big dumb monitor to render content from other sources.

But if I had the option of buying a TV that had its code on GitHub with a community-friendly tool chain, that would be the one I'd pick. I don't know what the community would produce for it, but I'm sure we'd think of something.

Automatic wake from sleep and show video from my security cameras when they detect motion, for example. Or caller ID from my phone. Or...

I'

Re: Completely backwards

[drinkypoo]

"I don't know what the community would produce for it, but I'm sure we'd think of something."

Just a dumb monitor but without a crap interface is my vote. Though I guess I could also go for moonlight, RDP client, and so on.

Re:

[easyTree]

But yeap, choice would be good. This fuck-up might just be great for Vizio and consumers. Thanks Stallman.

Re:

[tlhIngan]

Most TVs and other stuff using Linux simply put the source code on a separate web page and link to it in the manual and such.

E.g., randomly googling "company gpl code" I got:
Sony: https://oss.sony.net/Products/... [sony.net]
LG: https://opensource.lge.com/pro... [lge.com]

Of course, they generally are using GPLv2 source code rather than v3, but that's common these days. More products than not are using open source libraries and code in their products. They almost always have some sort of license acknowledgement in the manual.

It w

Re:

[Tschaine]

You're not wrong, but you're missing the point.

Not worried about the court striking down GPL

[dskoll]

Here's the thing: If the court says that the provisions of the GPL are invalid, that doesn't mean Vizio gets to just use the code all it wants.

No, since the GPL is the only license that permits Vizio to use the code, if it's ruled invalid, then Vizio loses all right to use GPL'd code for any reason whatsoever, and basically it would have to stop selling its products. It would mean the death knell for Vizio.

Re:

[Krishnoid]

Or cease and desist selling TVs with that firmware, until they update the firmware to not include the GPL-licensed code.

Re:

[serviscope_minor]

According to the terms of the GPL, they lose ALL rights to the software that they've violated the license of.

Now, they could find a workaround but they've been pretty profligate with their violations, so they'd need to either do a lot of legwork or come to terms with a lot of GPL code owners. Including the FSF who I'm sure will be very forgiving.

Re:

[mysidia]

If the court says that the provisions of the GPL are invalid, that doesn't mean Vizio gets to just use the code

That is not on the table though.. It is more a question of What is the applicability and enforcement of the GPL, And who gets to enforce it, and what is the remedy. If it were just the authors of the software suing over GPL violation -- your remedy for breach of license would typically be money damages or Injunction - Pay us money; Plus cease and decist distributing the violative code. On th

Re:

[mattr]

What if you forked it and it is an exact copy of what they used, would that change your standing? Just theoretical for me.

Re:

[serviscope_minor]

Just theoretical for me.

Generally the legal system has been subject to people fucking around for a thousand years and can deal with it. Any cool hacks you can think of almost certainly won't work.

Re:

[mysidia]

In any case your act of forking the code doesn't create a legal duty to you upon anyone else that didn't have one before.

Even if the upstream author's misconduct unknowingly causes your fork to become a copyright infringement; the GPL disclaims warranties.

There simply is not enough verbiage in the GPL to secure rights to the End Users against whatever wishes the authors of the original GPL software has in mind.
For example: If I write a program completely from scratch -- It is completely within my rights t

Re:

[swillden]

What if you forked it and it is an exact copy of what they used, would that change your standing? Just theoretical for me.

That would have no effect on the fact that the owner of the copyright (which is the original author) is generally the only person that has standing to sue for infringement of that copyright. You would own whatever code you contributed, but since you're saying the result would be an exact duplicate, you apparently didn't contribute anything.

Re:

[dskoll]

By selling binary code to consumers, though, there's a contract between Vizio and the purchaser because the GPL says that the purchaser gains the same rights under the GPL as the seller, and that the seller is responsible for fulfilling those rights.

So IMO, anyone who purchases GPL'd software has the right to demand source code. I can't see how a court would rule otherwise, but IANAL.

Re:

[dskoll]

Replying to myself... also, I suspect that if the court rules that only software authors can demand a remedy, some author will step up to the plate. There are hundreds of contributes to the Linux kernel and other software most likely used by Vizio and I'm sure the SFC will find at least one of them to act as a plaintiff.

Re:

[swillden]

By selling binary code to consumers, though, there's a contract between Vizio and the purchaser because the GPL says that the purchaser gains the same rights under the GPL as the seller, and that the seller is responsible for fulfilling those rights.

I don't see anything in the text of GPLv2 that says the seller is responsible for ensuring the buyer can exercise/fulfill those rights. It says the buyer has the rights, and it obligates the seller to distribute source code to the buyer, and it says if the seller is under some restriction that prevents them from complying with the terms of the license they may not distribute, but I don't see any obligation to ensure the buyer can exercise the rights separate from the obligation to distribute code to them.

Re:

[mysidia]

I don't see anything in the text of GPLv2 that says the seller is responsible for ensuring the buyer can exercise/fulfill those rights.

That would be a warranty. The seller opts to give a promise directly to the buyer that the buyer that they get the code
and can do the things that the GPL terms stated they are allowed to do.

The GPL does the opposite. It disclaims all warranties, unless the distributor provides you one in fact.
Including a copy of binaries based on GPL code does not automatically warrant that

Re:

[swillden]

That accords with my understanding, and undermines dskoll's argument that the buyer has standing. The SFC probably needs to pull a copyright owner into the suit to have standing. Unless the SFC is a copyright owner, which is entirely possible. I know they've asked owners of GPL'd code to assign copyrights. I assume some have.

Re:

[swillden]

Follow-up:

I asked claude.ai about this question and it agreed with the position that the GPL not only doesn't impose any obligation on the seller to the buyer, but actively disclaims any obligation (except the obligation to offer source code).

Claude was more thorough than I was, though, and actually looked up the details of the judge's tentative opinion and found that SFC's theory isn't that the obligation arises under the GPL, but that an implicit contract under California law was formed when Vizio's T

I hope Vizio sees the opportunity here.

[sabbede]

Basically, an open-source OS would guarantee that every TV I buy is a Vizio.

I suspect that I am not alone in this, especially amongst y'all. Vizio could capture a user base that tends to spend a lot on tech and keep them for a very long time.

The OS is the main reason (since Vizio wasn't on the spying TV list) I've been looking at other brands. If they open source the OS, then I could load firmware that doesn't run ads on the home screen. Maybe even get Pluto working again or add Jellyfin to the chan

Re:

[unixisc]

What was the GPL code that Vizio was using? Was it just Linux, or was there more? If it was just that, then Vizio could consider using something like NetBSD. If it is something else, Vizio should explore whether there are versions of it under other licenses, be it BSD, MIT, CDDL, or even just plain closed source

Re:

[sabbede]

Oh, a few things though I don't recall what. Codecs mainly, I think. But thank you for reminding me of the reason I know there were a few things. I've seen a list, on my TV, at the bottom of a system menu. Which makes me wonder which TVs didn't have that.

I'll report back if I remember to look. And remember to report back.
No guarantees.

Support the Software Freedom Conservancy

[martiniturbide]

Remember to support the Software Freedom Conservancy on his fundraising: https://sfconservancy.org/ [sfconservancy.org]