Judge Hints Vizio TV Buyers May Have Rights to Source Code Licensed Under Gpl

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).

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.

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

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.) "

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.

> 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.

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/

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.