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.
> 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?
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?
SFC's announcement:
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.
> 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.
> 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.
GPLv2
> 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.
> license that forces you to inform your customer
This is what I love about the original 4-clause BSD license.
We had that, Stallman opposed it: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/bsd.en.html
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.
Is the SFC just asking for code at this point, or are they also asking for damages?
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.
[1] https://sfconservancy.org/news/2025/jul/10/sfc-updates-motio...
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?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linksys_WRT54G_series#Third-pa...
That kind of thing is both a deterrent to commercial violation of licenses (unplanned open sourcing), and moves open source forward.
Though I also like the idea of monetary penalties large enough to be a deterrent.
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?