Judge hints Vizio TV buyers may have rights to source code licensed under GPL

https://www.theregister.com/2025/12/05/vizio_gpl_source_code_ruling/

by pabs3 • 7 months ago

200 33 7 months ago

gnabgib• 7 months ago

Discussion (201 points, 12 days ago, 34 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46166994

charcircuit5• 7 months 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.

MattPalmer1086• 7 months 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).

charcircuit5• 7 months ago

This article is not about whether Smartcast TV has all the neccessary licenses to be distributed. It's not the copyright owner of a dependency suing them.

itopaloglu834• 7 months 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.

charcircuit5• 7 months 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.

dragonwriter• 7 months 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.

gwd• 7 months ago

Lots of courts think differently. In particular, Visio already tried to move the case from a state court to a federal court, on the grounds that this is only about copyright (over which apparently only federal courts have jurisdiction). The federal court denied that, saying that there was indeed a contract, and thus it should be sorted out in the state courts.

https://sfconservancy.org/news/2022/may/16/vizio-remand-win/

jcarrano• 7 months ago

They "conveyed" the software, according to GPL wording. They violation is towards the original software's authors.

db48x4• 7 months ago

That’s true, but the contract thing is also separately true. The TV came with a notice stating that it used GPL’d software and offering to convey the source to anyone who wrote them. That’s a valid contract, which the SFC tried to act on. Vizio rebuffed them, so one of the issues before the court is a literal contract violation.

mytailorisrich• 7 months ago

Well...

"Plaintiff argues the subject smart TV included a statement in the “License List” menu that it “may contain executable codes and libraries that are subject to the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL), GNU Lesser General License (LGPL) … and other open source licenses. VIZIO offers to provide applicable source code upon request for a processing fee covering the cost of fulfilling the distribution….” (Motion, p. 8.) Plaintiff contends its representative accepted such offer by requesting the applicable source code in a live chat with a Vizio representative. (p. 9; UMFs 8-11.) "

turboponyy• 7 months ago

If Vizo never licensed the software to you under the GPL [...]

That may be true.

[...] you can't say they violated the GPL.

That does not necessarily follow.

If they used GPL-licensed code in their product, they may be obligated to provide the source code to that product's consumer.

remix2000• 7 months 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…

poofsoda• 7 months 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.

ronsor• 7 months ago

Very much this.

You never go for the big fish unless you have to. Even with an airtight case, they often can bleed you dry.

milkytron• 7 months ago

Vizio is owned by Wal-Mart though, so it's not exactly some small fish.

jmclnx• 7 months ago

The tentative ruling is not a final decision

Well, this being the US, I guess the Judge is looking for more "tips".

https://natlawreview.com/article/it-tip-or-bribe-supreme-cou...

Judge hints Vizio TV buyers may have rights to source code licensed under GPL

Related Stories