Apparently the actual case was to be argued in a session starting at 10am pacific, with their case as number 11.
Just skimming it, it looks like the judge grants 1 of 3 requests:
1. Vizio does have a "contractual duty" to provide the source code to SFC of any GPLv2 or LGPLv2 software
2/3. Vizio is not required to either provide the source code or an offer to give the source code to all buyers of the tv of any GPLv2 (issue 2) or LGPLv2 (issue 3).
Basically, if I'm reading it correctly, they have to give you the source code if you ask for it, but they don't have to tell you that you can ask.
ETA: Oh, but 2 and 3 are denied due to some technicality about how the SFC filed for summary judgements, without making any comment about whether they would have succeeded if they'd filed things another way.
And 1 is granted because somewhere in some menu on the TV said they could request it.
So what happens if Visio removes that menu option offering to give you the source code, and someone else files the motions properly? Not clear.
In other words, it doesn't look to me like it sets a real precedent either way.
> Basically, if I'm reading it correctly, they have to give you the source code if you ask for it, but they don't have to tell you that you can ask.
I think the bigger picture is more subtle than that. You, the buyer do not have a cause of action if they fail to tell you that you can ask.
They would, however be in violation of copyright if they don't tell buyers that they are entitled to ask for a copy of the source code because the license requires that they do so, and nothing else gives them permission to distributed the covered software. Any relevant copyright holder would have a cause of action in that case, but the SFC is not a copyright holder in this case.
I dont remember if we ever told our customers that they could ask for our code for one of the products a former employer made, but I do recall one customer did eventually ask for it, and we obliged. I don't know much of the details as to why they wanted it. Just know it was a GPL licensed project. Heck I think we even gave them pieces that were not even GPL based.
That's what's interesting. You probably had to give code that wasn't itself licensed as GPL because that code was covered by the terms of the GPL license (through linking, i presume). That's the entire purpose of GPL! It makes-free any code that directly touches GPL code. Ya know, like Midas and gold.
That's why it's such a powerful force for software freedom if the terms hold up.
As far as I know, the effect of linking to GPL code hasn't actually been tested in court.
The license is intended to impose obligations in the case of linking, but dynamic linking does not make a copy of the library at build time; it just generates enough metadata for the program to call the library. One might reasonably argue that no derivative work is created by dynamic linking, or that it is only created when the end user runs it.
EULAs are enforceable because the program is copied into RAM at runtime (a bad precedent, I think), but the GPL is not a EULA and only imposes requirements on distributors, not end users.
> he effect of linking to GPL code hasn't actually been tested in court.
the intent of the GPL family of LICENSE is clear. There certainly will be efforts to diminish its reach by motivated parties. Tests in US courts are certainly a function of the depth of the pockets of litigants, no?
I'm not even trying to address realities like the potential unfairness of the courts here. I'm saying it would be very reasonable to conclude that linking isn't copying and a copyright license isn't required to do it.
> Basically, if I'm reading it correctly, they have to give you the source code if you ask for it, but they don't have to tell you that you can ask.
Sounds like GPL v4 is inbound, a GPL license that forces you to inform your customer that your product uses a GPL licensed software by putting an image of Richard Stallman somewhere in your startup screen.
> c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
GPLv3
> d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your work need not make them do so.
With the definition
> An interactive user interface displays “Appropriate Legal Notices” to the extent that it includes a convenient and prominently visible feature that (1) displays an appropriate copyright notice, and (2) tells the user that there is no warranty for the work (except to the extent that warranties are provided), that licensees may convey the work under this License, and how to view a copy of this License. If the interface presents a list of user commands or options, such as a menu, a prominent item in the list meets this criterion.
As I understand the licenses if you use a GPLv2/3 library and you aren't proactively displaying notices (i.e. not just including them in a menu that the user might not even see or a readme file, but actually printing something about licenses to the screen every single time the user starts the program) you are committing copyright infringement.
Putting asides the legal details, things must be pretty bad inside Vizio if they'd rather go to court than release the code. Like they can't release the code because they don't know where it is.
For the SFC, the code (or rather, entitlement to receive complete corresponding source) has always been the point [1]. I don't think they ever asked for damages.
Do you think they could be trying to open up the TV firmware, like when the WRT54G settlement launched what became OpenWrt and other open firmware projects?
> Do you think they could be trying to open up the TV firmware
Yes, SFC is indeed trying to open up the software as happened with OpenWrt [1], though in this case the software in question is the operating system instead of the firmware.
I think the SFC also wanted to establish a legal precedent about the rights given by the GPLv2 to users. Unfortunately, such a precedent might not be forthcoming [2].
If the code gets released, is it plausible I could patch my TV? Or would the loading process be esoteric/signed bootloaders/whatever impediments that I could not functionally do anything with it?
GPL v3 requires that if updates by the manufacturer are possible, the device owner is given the necessary keys and instructions to install modified versions. It is not required if the software is installed to ROM that cannot be updated by anyone.
SFC is trying out a new legal theory [1] that they hope will make GPL enforcement easier: rather than copyright holders suing for copyright license violation, having consumers sue based on contract law.
It's been well-established that the copyright holders can sue Visio for violating their license. But it's actually often difficult to get the copyright holders to do any suing -- the cost/benefit for most developers just isn't worth it; many developers are actually strongly opposed to doing so.
Consumers have much more "skin in the game". Khun has developed a legal theory that he thinks should give consumers standing to sue (something about GPL also being a contract, and consumers being a beneficiary of the contract, if I understand correctly). That's why SFC is suing, without any copyright holders.
If they won this case under that theory, it would mean SFC could go after any GPL copyright violators on their own, without having to try to track down a copyright holder and convince them to get involved.
But from that perspective, it looks to me (admittedly as a layperson) like they screwed up: they won the right to the source code based not on the license by itself, but based on the fact that some menu somewhere said they could have it. And, their initial arguments based on the GPL were missing something, and they're not allowed to amend the motion for summary judgment. And, now that they've gotten the source code based on the menu, I'm not sure they can continue the lawsuit (since there's no point, they've already gotten what they want). So while they may have gained experience refining their legal technique (by failure), they haven't yet proven that the new legal theory works.
More hardware platforms that can be supported. The potential of a brand new OpenWrt/DDWRT like project for TVs is attractive, especially for Vizio TVs (which are extremely common and their factory software is terrible).
The context here is that (1) Linux allows proprietary drivers so even if they release all the code they're required to release it probably won't include drivers that TVs need and (2) code released by embedded vendors is very low quality so you'd have to spend years cleaning it up.
https://sfconservancy.org/news/2025/dec/04/tentative-vizio-r...
Apparently the actual case was to be argued in a session starting at 10am pacific, with their case as number 11.
Just skimming it, it looks like the judge grants 1 of 3 requests:
1. Vizio does have a "contractual duty" to provide the source code to SFC of any GPLv2 or LGPLv2 software
2/3. Vizio is not required to either provide the source code or an offer to give the source code to all buyers of the tv of any GPLv2 (issue 2) or LGPLv2 (issue 3).
Basically, if I'm reading it correctly, they have to give you the source code if you ask for it, but they don't have to tell you that you can ask.
ETA: Oh, but 2 and 3 are denied due to some technicality about how the SFC filed for summary judgements, without making any comment about whether they would have succeeded if they'd filed things another way.
And 1 is granted because somewhere in some menu on the TV said they could request it.
So what happens if Visio removes that menu option offering to give you the source code, and someone else files the motions properly? Not clear.
In other words, it doesn't look to me like it sets a real precedent either way.
reply