The human rights organization Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) has published information about the progress of the legal proceedings with Vizio related to non-compliance with the requirements of the GPL license when distributing firmware for smart TVs based on the SmartCast platform. Vizio has not expressed a desire to fix the GPL infringement, has not entered into negotiations to resolve the identified issues, and has not attempted to prove that the allegations are erroneous and the firmware does not use modified GPL code. Instead, Vizio filed a request to a higher court to dismiss the proceedings on the pretext that consumers are not beneficiaries and do not have the right to file such claims.
Recall that the lawsuit filed against Vizio is remarkable in that it was not filed on behalf of the development participant who owns the property rights to the code, but on the part of the consumer, who was not provided with the source texts of the components distributed under the GPL license. According to Vizio, under copyright law, only owners of proprietary rights to the code have the authority to file claims for infringement of the license to the code, and consumers cannot sue source code even if the manufacturer ignores the requirements of the code license. Vizio filed a motion to dismiss the case in a higher U.S. federal court without attempting to settle the matter in California court, where the Software Freedom Conservancy's lawsuit was originally filed.
The lawsuit against Vizio was filed after three years of trying to enforce the requirements of the GPL license amicably. GPL packages such as the Linux kernel, U-Boot, Bash, gawk, GNU tar, glibc, FFmpeg, Bluez, BusyBox, Coreutils, glib, dnsmasq, DirectFB, libgcrypt and systemd have been identified in the firmware of Vizio smart TVs, but the company did not provide the possibility of the user requesting the source texts of the GPL-components of the firmware, and in the information materials did not mention the use of software under copyleft licenses and the rights granted by these licenses. The lawsuit did not provide for the payment of monetary compensation, the SFC organization only asked the court to oblige the company to comply with the terms of the GPL in its products and inform consumers about the rights that copyleft licenses provide.
When using code under copyleft licenses in its products, the manufacturer must provide source code, including code for derivative works and installation instructions, to preserve the freedom of the software. Without such actions, the user loses control over the software, cannot independently fix errors, add new features and remove unnecessary functionality. Changes may be required to protect your privacy, fix issues that the manufacturer refuses to fix on your own, and extend the life of a device after it has ended official support or has been artificially obsolete to incentivize the purchase of a new model.
Addendum: An analysis of the dispute between the SFC and Visio is available through the eyes of lawyer Kyle E. Mitchell, who believes that the SFC's lawsuit considers Visio's actions as a breach of contract under contractual rather than property law applicable to license violations. But the contractual relationship can only be between the developer and Visio, and third parties, such as SFC, cannot be beneficiaries, since they do not relate to any of the parties to the contract, and, accordingly, do not have the right to file a lawsuit in court for breach of contract, unless the case concerns loss of profit due to a breach of a third-party contract.
Source: opennet.ru