{"id":104059,"date":"2022-05-17T15:36:44","date_gmt":"2022-05-17T13:36:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/prohoster.info\/blog\/novosti-interneta\/novyj-povorot-v-razbiratelstve-svyazannom-s-narusheniem-liczenzii-gpl-kompaniej-vizio"},"modified":"2022-05-17T15:36:44","modified_gmt":"2022-05-17T13:36:44","slug":"novyj-povorot-v-razbiratelstve-svyazannom-s-narusheniem-liczenzii-gpl-kompaniej-vizio","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/prohoster.info\/en\/blog\/news\/novyj-povorot-v-razbiratelstve-svyazannom-s-narusheniem-liczenzii-gpl-kompaniej-vizio","title":{"rendered":"A new twist in the investigation related to GPL license violations by Vizio Inc.","gt_translate_keys":[{"key":"rendered","format":"text"}]},"content":{"rendered":"
The Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) human rights organization has announced a new phase in its legal battle with Vizio, accused of failing to meet GPL license requirements while distributing firmware for SmartCast platform-based smart TVs. SFC representatives have successfully moved the case from the U.S. Federal Court back to the California state court, which is fundamentally significant in classifying GPL not only under copyright law but also within the realm of contract law. <\/p>\n
Previously, Vizio successfully transferred the case to Federal Court, which is authorized to handle copyright infringement issues. This case is notable because it is the first in history filed not on behalf of a developer participant with proprietary rights to the code, but rather from a consumer who was not provided with the source texts of components distributed under the GPL. By shifting the examination of the GPL into the area of copyright law, Vizio is constructing its defense on an attempt to demonstrate that consumers are not beneficiaries and have no rights to file such lawsuits. In other words, Vizio seeks to dismiss the case on the grounds of the illegitimacy of the lawsuit filing, without addressing the merits of the GPL infringement claims. <\/p>\n
Representatives of the SFC organization argue that the GPL includes elements of a contract, and a consumer granted certain rights by the license is a participant and can demand enforcement of their rights to obtain the source code of the derivative product. The consent of the Federal Court to remand the case to the District Court confirms the applicability of contract law to violations of the GPL (copyright infringement cases are handled in Federal Courts, while contract violations are addressed in District Courts). <\/p>\n
Judge Josephine Staton, who presided over the case, refused to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiff is not a beneficiary in the copyright infringement proceedings, as the performance of a contractual obligation specified in the GPL license is separate from the rights granted by copyright law. The ruling to remand the case to the district court noted that the GPL functions simultaneously as both a license for using copyright-protected work and a contractual agreement. <\/p>\n
The lawsuit against Vizio was filed in 2021 after three years of attempts to resolve GPL compliance issues 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 were identified in the firmware of Vizio smart TVs, but the company did not provide a way for users to request the source codes of the GPL components, nor did it mention the use of copyleft-licensed software and the rights provided by these licenses in its informational materials. The lawsuit does not seek monetary damages; the Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) only requests the court to mandate Vizio to comply with the GPL in its products and inform consumers about the rights granted by copyleft licenses. <\/p>\n
A manufacturer using copyleft-licensed code in its products must provide the source code, including the code for derivative works and installation instructions, in order to preserve software freedom. Without such actions, users lose control over the software, cannot independently fix bugs, add new features, or remove unnecessary functionality. Modifications may be needed to protect privacy, address issues the manufacturer refuses to resolve, and extend the device's lifecycle after official support has ended or planned obsolescence has been imposed to encourage the purchase of a new model. \n Source: opennet.ru<\/a> <\/p>","protected":false,"gt_translate_keys":[{"key":"rendered","format":"html"}]},"excerpt":{"rendered":"