ambiguity

There is a difference between "the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable" (as the GPLv2 says) and "any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work" (as the GPLv3 says, in the context of a "User Product," which has a whole bunch of other verbiage that I'm not quoting here).

The judge's opinion does not say exactly where to draw the line, but here are some hypothetical things that *might* be "installation scripts" under GPLv2:

- A script that places binaries in /usr/bin etc., assuming that is the name of the directory where the real product keeps its binaries.
- A script that creates an unsigned image suitable for use with e.g. Docker.
- A script that constructs a .deb or .rpm package.

This is further complicated by the fact that, in this case, the software we care about is the kernel. So /usr/bin is probably irrelevant, but then I don't know precisely what it means to "install" a kernel (as distinguished from installing an entire OS including the kernel). Maybe configuring GRUB etc. to boot into it? Maybe constructing initrd/initramfs or whatnot? It seems underspecified.

I think the most plausible position for Vizio to take is that they are only required to provide things that are either directly based on something in Linus's tree, or direct replacements for something in Linus's tree. So if Linus has an "installation" script in the upstream kernel, and Vizio has a script that performs an analogous operation, then maybe Vizio has to provide that script (even if it is not based on Linus's script). But if Vizio does something that Linus has never provided (like code signing), then they will argue that it's out of scope.

I have no idea if the judge will sign off on that interpretation, but it does at least look to be compatible with what the judge wrote.