SFC v. VIZIO: who can enforce the GPL?

By Daroc Alden
January 8, 2026

The Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) is suing VIZIO over smart TVs that include software licensed under the GPL and LGPL (including the Linux kernel, FFmpeg, systemd, and others). VIZIO didn't provide the source code along with the device, and on request they only provided some of it. Unlike a typical lawsuit about enforcing the GPL, the SFC isn't suing as a copyright holder; it's suing as a normal owner of the TV in question. This approach opens some important legal questions, and after years of pre-trial maneuvering (most recently resulting in a ruling related to signing keys that is the subject of a separate article), we might finally obtain some answers when the case goes to trial on January 12. As things stand, it seems likely that the judge in the case will rule that that the GPL-enforcement lawsuits can be a matter of contract law, not just copyright law, which would be a major change to how GPL enforcement works.

The primary question at the heart of the case is: who has the right to enforce the GPL? There are plenty of things that are illegal, but that nobody can (or cares to) enforce — for example, in my home state of New Hampshire, it is illegal for a restaurant to serve sugar in a container with holes wider than 3/8ths of an inch, but I would be incredibly surprised if the police actually charged someone under that law.

Enforcement is the mechanism that binds the words written in the law (which are, after all, just ink on paper) to the actions that people actually take in the real world. The difference between criminal law and civil law lies in who is supposed to point out violations and do something about them. In the case of criminal law, it is generally up to the government to choose which violations of law warrant taking action. In the case of civil law, it's mostly up to everyone else — although there are exceptions to this general trend in both directions.

In the US, anyone can sue anyone for anything — for a loose definition of "can". Anyone is allowed to file a lawsuit against anyone else, but in order for the lawsuit to actually be adjudicated by the court, the person suing must have "standing to sue". Exactly who does and does not have standing can be complicated, but generally a person must show that they were actually harmed by someone else's action, and that there was some law or agreement in place that was violated. In the typical GPL-enforcement case, this involves having the copyright holder show that someone broke the terms of the GPL, and argue that they were harmed thereby because now someone is distributing their copyrighted code without a license.

Whether anyone other than the copyright holder has standing to sue under the GPL has been a matter of debate for years. The problem is that if the GPL is only a copyright license and nothing more, then the only person harmed by violating the license is the copyright holder. On the other hand, if the GPL is enforceable under contract law, other people who benefit from the GPL potentially have standing to sue for breach of contract.

VIZIO makes and sells TVs that include copies of the Linux kernel (two different versions of the kernel, actually, with one running as a guest of the other) and other software which is covered under the terms of version 2 of the GPL or the LGPL. The lawsuit lists 25 different pieces of open-source software. When the SFC bought a TV from VIZIO, they asked for "the complete and corresponding source code" of the version of all of this software on the TV, which the GPL says must be included with the product or provided upon request. VIZIO provided some code, but it was not complete and did not compile, ultimately leading to SFC filing a lawsuit against the company.

Unlike a typical GPL-enforcement lawsuit (which the SFC has tried previously), however, this one is not a copyright-infringement case. This lawsuit is new and unique in the US because the SFC isn't suing on behalf of a copyright holder; it's suing as a recipient of the software. Its argument is that the GPL is intended to benefit users (specifically, by ensuring that they can obtain the source code for programs that they buy), so the SFC is a "third-party beneficiary" of the GPL: it isn't the original author, and it didn't adapt the kernel, but it was still intended to benefit, so it is harmed by VIZIO not complying with the GPL's requirements. (Technically, the SFC does hold some relevant copyrights, but in this case it chose not to assert them, so they don't matter to the case.)

155. Permitting Plaintiff to bring this cause of action is consistent with the objectives of the GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 and the reasonable expectations of VIZIO and the developers of the SmartCast Works at Issue.

156. Therefore, Plaintiff is an intended third-party beneficiary of the GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 between VIZIO and the developers of the SmartCast Works at Issue and, because of this, may seek to enforce the Source Code Provision against VIZIO.

The main benefit of the lawsuit is that if the SFC wins, VIZIO will be required to share the code for its modified kernels, systemd daemon, GNU C library, etc. But an important secondary benefit is establishing the precedent that owners of products including GPL-licensed code are third-party beneficiaries to the GPL, and have standing to sue when companies don't comply with the license. The US uses a common law system, inherited from ~~the UK~~ England. Under that system, judges are required to take prior rulings on related cases into account when making a judgment. Once the SFC v. VIZIO lawsuit concludes (and at least one appeal has been made), other GPL-enforcement lawsuits will be able to point to it as evidence one way or the other about whether people have standing to sue.

This is important because the authors of GPL software are not always available — or willing — to kick off a lawsuit to enforce the terms of the license. Any of the many contributors to the kernel could theoretically have sued VIZIO (and might have had a better chance of winning), but lawsuits are time-consuming and expensive, and nobody did sue VIZIO over this until the SFC did. If owners of products are allowed to file GPL-enforcement lawsuits, it becomes much easier to hold people who adapt GPL-licensed code accountable.

The case so far

The most visible part of a lawsuit is the trial, but there's a lot that goes on behind the scenes before a trial is possible. The whole process started with the SFC explicitly asking VIZIO for the source code in August 2018. In January 2019, VIZIO responded with what it claimed was the complete source code for the GPL-licensed software included in its smart TVs. The code included in the response, however, did not even compile.

The GPL requires anyone who modifies GPL-licensed programs to provide recipients of the software with the complete source code, which it defines like this:

For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.

Since the provided code did not compile, it was definitely not the complete source code. The SFC wrote to VIZIO explaining that it was missing part of the complete source code; VIZIO responded with an amended version. This repeated six times throughout 2019, but never resulted in a set of source code that the SFC was happy with. Throughout this time period, the SFC continued buying and checking new VIZIO products for compliance, eventually finding one which contained an offer to provide the source code buried deep in a submenu. (This had previously gone undetected by the SFC because the offer only appeared when the TV was connected to the internet.)

Finally, in 2021, the SFC filed a lawsuit against VIZIO, asking the court to order VIZIO to produce the missing files. (Later in the process, the SFC amended that complaint to be more specific about what the problem with VIZIO's provided code was.) Specifically, the SFC asked for:

a. An order directing Defendants to produce to Plaintiff the complete source code corresponding to whatever versions of the SmartCast Works at Issue, and any other program subject to the GPLv2 or LGPLv2.1 that are resident on VIZIO smart TVs having model numbers V435-J01, D32h-J09, and M50Q7-J01, including the Linux kernel used with VIZIO's SmartCast operating system, in a format that may be compiled and installed without undue difficulty. For purposes of this prayer for relief, "complete source code" means all source code for all modules contained in such version or versions of the SmartCast Works at Issue, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.

b. An order directing Defendants to produce to Plaintiff the complete source code or object code for any program resident on VIZIO smart TVs having model numbers V435-J01, D32h-J09, or M50Q7-J01 that links with any of the SmartCast Libraries at Issue, or any other library subject to the LGPLv2.1, so that the Plaintiff can modify the library and then relink to produce a modified executable;

VIZIO replied by filing a motion to move the lawsuit from California's state court (where the SFC originally filed the lawsuit) to federal court, on the grounds that this was fundamentally a copyright dispute, which is a matter of federal law. Its argument was that the SFC's "claims are completely preempted by the laws of the United States, specifically, the federal Copyright Act". The act in question (17 U.S.C. § 106) pertains specifically to the rights of copyright holders — which means that if the case had been transferred to federal court, VIZIO could have claimed that the SFC, which is not a copyright holder, did not have standing to sue. The SFC said that the case wasn't eligible to go to the federal court because the GPL introduced an extra contractual obligation to provide source code, and that this contractual obligation goes beyond what federal copyright law requires. US district court judge Josephine Staton did not agree with VIZIO, and returned the matter firmly to California's state court.

In the US legal system, trials have two purposes: finding out the facts of what happened, and determining whether what happened broke the law or breached a contract. In cases where the first part is unnecessary (either because the people involved in the lawsuit agree on what happened, or where one side's argument is so clearly invalid that the specific details don't matter), the participants can ask the court for "summary adjudication", where the judge in the case decides the outcome of some or all of the arguments made so far without a trial, based only on what the law says. In 2023, VIZIO asked the state court to perform a summary adjudication in this case, on the grounds that this should be a copyright-infringement question (which the SFC can't sue over, not being a copyright holder), and that even if it weren't a copyright matter, the SFC still couldn't sue because it isn't an intended third-party beneficiary.

The judge in the case, Sandy Leal, wasn't convinced by VIZIO's argument, and denied its motion for summary adjudication. In that ruling, she determined that the matter was not purely a copyright issue, and the SFC could in principle have standing to sue. On the other hand, she did not address whether the SFC was a third-party beneficiary of the GPL, leaving that to be argued about during the trial.

In 2024, the SFC asked for summary adjudication the other way, hoping that the judge would agree that it definitely was a third-party beneficiary. Leal wasn't convinced of that either. With the lawsuit not obviously favoring one side or the other, the rest of 2024 saw both sides attempting to gather evidence and attempt mediation before going to trial. In 2025, the SFC asked for summary adjudication a second time for a slightly different set of reasons:

(1) The undisputed facts establish that VIZIO made an offer to provide the applicable source code subject to the GPLv2 and the LPGLv2.1 in connection with VIZIO's sale of its Smart TV Model No. D32h-J09 to SFC, which offer was accepted by SFC. Therefore, under general principles of contract law, VIZIO has a contractual duty to provide that source code to SFC; and (2) The plain language of the GPLv2 and the LGPLv2.1 compels the conclusion that purchasers of VIZIO Smart TVs such as SFC are third-party beneficiaries of the provision of the GPLv2 that entitles such purchasers to receive the source code for: (a) any software on VIZIO's Smart TVs that is licensed under the GPLv2; and (2) any library on VIZIO's SMART TVs that is licensed under the LGPLv2.l. Therefore, under the GPLv2 and the LGPLv2.1, VIZIO has a contractual duty to provide purchasers of VIZIO Smart TVs with that source code.

So, the SFC was arguing two separate things: that VIZIO had promised them the source code and had to follow through; and that even if VIZIO had not promised the source code, people who buy the TVs in question are still third-party beneficiaries, and therefore have standing to sue anyway. This attempt at summary adjudication has not yet resulted in a ruling, with VIZIO and the SFC going back and forth without garnering a response from the judge.

VIZIO then filed its own second attempt at summary adjudication, arguing that the SFC was asking for VIZIO to enable installing modified programs on the TVs without breaking anything, which the GPL doesn't require:

VIZIO moves on the grounds that the plain language of GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 or, in the alternative, the undisputed extrinsic evidence, compels the conclusion that neither license imposes a duty on licensees to provide all information necessary to permit reinstallation of modified software back on the same device such that the device continues to function properly [Emphasis added].

In its first attempt at summary adjudication, VIZIO argued that this was a copyright problem, not a contract problem. In this second attempt, VIZIO argues that even if there is a contract, the contract doesn't actually require them to produce "working" source code — that the source code they provide can be considered complete even if it cannot actually be successfully installed onto the same device.

The SFC denied asking for that, saying that it only wanted access to the source code of the scripts to control installation, not a guarantee that those scripts would actually result in a working TV. That wasn't obvious to everyone, though, with many people feeling that the SFC had overreached; a companion LWN article explores this topic in more depth. The judge agreed with VIZIO that the GPL definitely doesn't require the company to ensure that recompiling and reinstalling the GPL-licensed software must result in a working TV — but, since the SFC had other demands that were covered by the GPL, the matter would have to proceed to trial.

On December 4, Judge Leal did issue a set of tentative rulings on her upcoming cases, including SFC v. VIZIO. (That link goes to an excerpted PDF containing only the pages relevant to SFC v. VIZIO.) Tentative rulings are not binding — the judge is free to change her mind later — but they represent her current understanding and disposition going into the trial. The tentative ruling considered several points, and deferred most of them to the trial, but the judge did come down on one explicit facet of the case: VIZIO does have a contractual duty to provide SFC with the complete source code, as the GPL defines it, for the GPL-licensed programs on one particular kind of smart TV. The smart TV includes an offer to "provide applicable source code upon request for a processing fee covering the cost of fulfilling the distribution" buried in one of its menus. VIZIO made this offer, and the SFC accepted it, so the SFC has shown that there really is a contract to have a lawsuit over.

Judges often rule narrowly on individual parts of a case, to avoid being caught in unfortunate corner cases. So, her tentative ruling doesn't cover what would happen if a company didn't provide a source offer; such a company might be able to argue that if there is no offer to share the source code (which the GPL requires), then they may have broken the license, but not created a contract that can be violated. Since VIZIO isn't making that argument, however, whether it would stand up in court will be a matter for a different lawsuit. Judge Leal's tentative rulings didn't address whether recipients of modified GPL-licensed programs are third-party beneficiaries of the GPL in general, even before accepting a source offer.

Where things stand

Currently, that trial is scheduled for January 12. After years of legal back-and-forth, this is when VIZIO and the SFC will finally present their actual arguments to the judge. There are a few questions that will need to be resolved during the trial. The judge has already ruled that this is not purely a copyright matter, but is the SFC a third-party beneficiary to the GPL itself? If so, did VIZIO break the contract by not providing the complete source code in the first place? What about after the SFC accepted an offer for the source code?

Judge Leal could rule either way on any of those questions. If she does rule that the SFC has standing to sue (as her judgment of VIZIO's motion for summary adjudication said could be the case in principle), and that VIZIO is in breach of contract (as her tentative ruling indicates), she could order VIZIO to provide the complete source code. On the other hand, she could also rule that the SFC has standing to sue, but that VIZIO's behavior did not violate the GPL. That would be a loss for the SFC, but it would still establish the precedent that owners of GPL-licensed software can have standing to sue (if the company makes a source offer, and possibly at all times, depending on how the trial goes).

Even once Leal renders her decision, the whole process is not necessarily over: no matter who wins, the case could be appealed. In fact, VIZIO already filed an appeal, but the court of appeals chose not to consider it. Even if there are no appeals, we could still see more cases like this coming up in different states. If the case isn't appealed, it doesn't become binding precedent (in this case, only the court of appeals can make binding precedents, and only in published opinions), but it can still be "persuasive precedent", which judges often look at when considering a case, but are not required to take into account. Even if the case were appealed and became binding precedent, that would still only apply in the state of California. As a practical matter, having Californian precedent that owners of products incorporating GPL-licensed code are third-party beneficiaries of the GPL does make it easier to argue to companies that they should avoid an expensive losing legal battle by complying up front — but companies in other jurisdictions could still try to fight such attempts.

Summary

Overall, the question to be decided in the upcoming trial is: in California (and weakly throughout the rest of the US), can people sue companies for not providing the complete source code of GPL-licensed software used in products they buy? If the company makes a source offer, the answer, based on Judge Leal's tentative ruling, is almost certainly yes. If that is confirmed during the trial, it will herald many new opportunities to attempt GPL enforcement against companies that are currently flouting the license.

Trials typically take several days or weeks in complex cases such as this. Keep an eye on LWN's news feed for the outcome when it does conclude.

[ I would like to thank SFC executive director Karen Sandler and other non-SFC advisors for reviewing this article for factual mistakes. ]

Index entries for this article
Kernel	Copyright issues

to post comments

Is the contract restricted to the buyers, or to the "any 3rd party" of the GPL?

Posted Jan 8, 2026 16:23 UTC (Thu) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] (23 responses)

Question I have whether the contract that is created is part of or arises in the wake of the contract of sale between the maker and buyer for the device; or whether the contract arises out of the "any 3rd party" condition of the GPL for source offers (i.e., where source was not provided as part of the original distribution)?

Is the contract restricted to the buyers, or to the "any 3rd party" of the GPL?

Posted Jan 8, 2026 16:33 UTC (Thu) by daroc (editor, #160859) [Link] (14 responses)

My current understanding (with the caveat that although I've researched this and read through the legal filings, I'm not a lawyer) is that:

If a company does indeed make a source offer, and someone accepts, that probably suffices to create an enforceable contract under California law and probably under other US jurisdictions too. This contract doesn't directly depend on the GPL — it's formed in the normal way of any contract, by having someone make an offer and someone accept a deal wherein each party receives a consideration.

Anything beyond that, such as whether just redistributing modified GPL-licensed software is enough to implicitly create a source offer, or whether buying a product changes things, or how this extends to other less explicit cases is not decided yet. Some of that might be decided during the trial, and some of it might have to be settled by other lawsuits.

Is the contract restricted to the buyers, or to the "any 3rd party" of the GPL?

Posted Jan 8, 2026 20:41 UTC (Thu) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

> This contract doesn't directly depend on the GPL — it's formed in the normal way of any contract, by having someone make an offer and someone accept a deal wherein each party receives a consideration.

Bear in mind, I believe there has been a US court case which has explicitly stated that consideration is not necessarily money/goods, a promise can be consideration. So an acceptance of the GPL / promise to abide by its terms could be the necessary consideration to create a contract. Which would clearly make the SFC a 3rd-party beneficiary of a contract.

Cheers,
Wol

Is the contract restricted to the buyers, or to the "any 3rd party" of the GPL?

Posted Jan 8, 2026 21:21 UTC (Thu) by daroc (editor, #160859) [Link]

Sure! I do think it's very possible that the judge will say that such a contract exists. But we don't know that will happen for _certain_ because she has not yet ruled on that question.

Is the contract restricted to the buyers, or to the "any 3rd party" of the GPL?

Posted Jan 8, 2026 23:59 UTC (Thu) by milesrout (subscriber, #126894) [Link] (11 responses)

What consideration does the offeror receive in this scenario? As I understand it you're talking about this situation:

1. A offers to the world to provide the source code for product X.
2. B "accepts" the offer by doing what? Buying product X manufactured by A but not directly from A?

The problem is: what consideration has A received from X?

The classic case in English law on unilateral contracts, and I suspect but have not checked that the same general principles apply in the US, is Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company where the Smoke Ball company offered its product for sale and advertised that it could cure certain ailments. It also offered to pay a reward to anyone whose ailments weren't cured. Carlill bought the product and sued for the reward, not having been cured.

But the difference here is that B has just downloaded X. B hasn't actually bought anything from A, hasn't given any consideration. There's no contract. Now it might be different if B had bought a TV directly from the manufacturer but if B has bought the TV from their local retailer then I don't see how there is good consideration from B to A for there to be a contract.

(This post is not legal advice etc.)

Is the contract restricted to the buyers, or to the "any 3rd party" of the GPL?

Posted Jan 9, 2026 8:28 UTC (Fri) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (2 responses)

You could well be right but this doesn't sit well with me. This smells (like Carbolic :-) of early consumer protection.

Smoke Ball took the customer's money and provided a guarantee, which had nothing to do with the customer and everything to do with the product. So this case has a strong whiff of "fraud" to me - either it didn't work and Smoke Ball took money under false pretences, or it did work and the customer was trying it on.

The GPL and software licences feel very different to me. "If you do X, we will let you do Y". (And this is where lawyers earn their money because consciously intending not to do X also stinks of fraud ...).

So I think the question in the Carbolic case is did Smoke Ball make an offer they had no intention of honouring, or did they make an offer they didn't expect to be taken up.

In the Vizio case, the question is did Vizio (or someone in their supply chain) make an offer they had no intention of honouring.

And to whoever mentioned buying a house for them and their child, I don't think courts are extending contracts to "third party beneficiaries", I suspect they're just taking the attitude "a contract is a contract is a contract". Again, consumer protection comes in, because you have the gifter/giftee scenario. If I buy something and gift it to my children, they have no rights because it was a gift. If it wasn't a gift and they'd given me something they would have had rights against me. In the house example the contract said the vendor agreed to hand over the house, so the contractual recipient should be able to enforce it.

I think the question boils down to "is there a clear contractual path to someone who has reneged on their agreement?", and imho as soon as you step beyond unconditional gifts / licenses, that brings an agreement - a contract - into play. Is the licence the whole agreement, or is the licence merely the terms of a contract? Imho if the licence places conditions on the recipient, then it has to be the terms of a mutual contract. It just doesn't make legal sense to me otherwise.

Cheers,
Wol

Is the contract restricted to the buyers, or to the "any 3rd party" of the GPL?

Posted Jan 9, 2026 11:15 UTC (Fri) by milesrout (subscriber, #126894) [Link] (1 responses)

The case had nothing to do with consumer protection or fraud. It related to whether there was a contract. It may have entered the judicial mind that the plaintiff was a poor elderly old woman and the defendant was a company but that wasn't the reason for the decision. The reason I brought it up was to contrast it to this case where there it is not clear to me how you could argue that there's an independent contract between me and you just because you publicly make a source code offer and I "accept" it. In order for there to be a contract, there needs to be an exchange of consideration. I'm asking: what does the person to whom I was replying think the consideration is here?

I don't know why you're speculating about the reasons for the Carlill decision because they're not relevant to the point and there's no need to speculate: anyone can go and read it. It isn't about whether the company intended to honour their promise but whether the promise was legally binding as an offer to the world (or whether, as they unsuccessfully argued, offers have to made to specific persons). Subjective intention is not relevant to the law of contract.

>And to whoever mentioned buying a house for them and their child, I don't think courts are extending contracts to "third party beneficiaries", I suspect they're just taking the attitude "a contract is a contract is a contract".

When I briefly explained the principle of privity of contract, its strict implications for intended third party beneficiaries, and that it has commonly been statutorily reformed across multiple jurisdictions, I actually wasn't starting a debate or asking you to come up with ideas about what reasons you might have or have had for coming to similar decisions. I know that sounds rude, but I don't mean it that way. I just don't actually see any value in speculations about things that aren't speculative. This isn't a topic that's up for debate, it's what the legal history is.

There is no legal principle that "a contract is a contract is a contract". There is, however, a principle that only the parties to a contract can enforce it and intended third party beneficiaries are not parties to contracts and so cannot enforce it. And a long history of that principle being applied. And a recognition in society that that created unjust outcomes. And a resulting effort to reform the law to enable claims by intended third party beneficiaries of contracts.

This has nothing to do with consumer protection in the scenario I outlined. The example was not a consumer issue. And it has nothing to do with gifts. My example was an agreement where A pays B in exchange for B transferring property to A and to C. C is not a party to that contract: C has given no consideration, didn't offer anything, didn't accept anything, and does not need to have any knowledge of the contract or manifest any intention to enter into legal relations.

Of course in that scenario the vendor should not be allowed to get away with not transferring the property to C just because A doesn't want to enforce the contract, and C should have a legal right and a claim. That's why this rule has been changed in so many places. But I'm saying I'm not sure how it has changed specifically in California, so it might not be as simple as it is in some places for a third party beneficiary to make a claim.

>I think the question boils down to "is there a clear contractual path to someone who has reneged on their agreement?", and imho as soon as you step beyond unconditional gifts / licenses, that brings an agreement - a contract - into play. Is the licence the whole agreement, or is the licence merely the terms of a contract? Imho if the licence places conditions on the recipient, then it has to be the terms of a mutual contract. It just doesn't make legal sense to me otherwise.

Sometimes the law doesn't make sense to laymen. That's unfortunate but it's fine because it has to operate according to rules and those rules sometimes have consequences that are unintuitive. The question here is whether there is a contract between Vizio and the SFC or whether SFC could make a claim as a third party beneficiary of the contract. They're too quite separate questions. For the former to be the case, there needs to be consideration (which I don't see and nobody has given a satisfactory suggestion for what that consideration might be). The latter claim seems much more likely to me, both from the basic facts as outlined in the article and from the express reference to a claim as a third party in the article.

Is the contract restricted to the buyers, or to the "any 3rd party" of the GPL?

Posted Jan 9, 2026 13:21 UTC (Fri) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link]

> The question here is whether there is a contract between Vizio and the SFC [... ] there needs to be consideration [...]

Given that the SFC purchased a Vizio TV, there's clearly _some_ sort of consideration changing hands here.

(Ok, ok, sure, the SFC didn't purchase it directly from Vizio, so there are probably a couple of middlemen involved. But in numerous contexts, the law allows [if not requires!] these layers of indirection to be short-circuited directly back to the manufacturer. Meanwhile, if you turned the TV on and there's a click-through "contract" with Vizio's name on it, then there's clearly a direct relationship too...)

Is the contract restricted to the buyers, or to the "any 3rd party" of the GPL?

Posted Jan 9, 2026 10:50 UTC (Fri) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]

Your example is confusing because it imagines a product X and then asks where X provided consideration. Products don't accept contracts and so needn't provide consideration, people do that, and so I suggest that you mean to ask what consideration A has received from B ?

English Law has a *long* history of finding some consideration where a lay person can't immediately see anything, so I don't expect that to be an obstacle here. Go read about Peppercorn rents for an example of this. Today it's even not legal to demand payment of the peppercorn because the whole point is that it's a legal fiction, you don't get an actual peppercorn. Lawyers were apparently not uncomfortable with the idea of "consideration" which doesn't exist and will never in reality be received by the other party.

So in this scenario my guess is that if obliged to find one lawyers will say something like B might improve this source code, and A can benefit from that, so that's a consideration. Did they improve it? Nobody cares, in principle they could. Did A benefit? Nobody cares, in principle they could.

Is the contract restricted to the buyers, or to the "any 3rd party" of the GPL?

Posted Jan 9, 2026 12:27 UTC (Fri) by nivedita76 (subscriber, #121790) [Link] (5 responses)

You shouldn’t need a direct purchase, otherwise how would manufacturer warranties work?

Is the contract restricted to the buyers, or to the "any 3rd party" of the GPL?

Posted Jan 9, 2026 13:07 UTC (Fri) by farnz (subscriber, #17727) [Link]

Manufacturer warranties are not always enforceable, depending on jurisdiction. And when they are enforceable, they're not always contract terms.

In places where they're not enforceable, they are legally good-will gestures from the manufacturer to the consumer; the manufacturer chooses to do something because they believe that the cost of fixing faults is outweighed by the reputational benefit of having consumers believe that the manufacturer will fix any faults they find.

Is the contract restricted to the buyers, or to the "any 3rd party" of the GPL?

Posted Jan 9, 2026 16:06 UTC (Fri) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (3 responses)

Many warranties only apply to the original purchaser, and require proof-of-purchase.

Many warranties are also now worthless, as being a subset of consumer protection rights (other than consumer convenience of being to able to say "this is a warranty issue", as I've had cause to do occasionally).

Cheers,
Wol

Is the contract restricted to the buyers, or to the "any 3rd party" of the GPL?

Posted Jan 10, 2026 10:06 UTC (Sat) by nivedita76 (subscriber, #121790) [Link] (2 responses)

Well, yes, but as the “original purchaser” of, say, a Sony TV, your proof of purchase shows a payment to Best Buy or amazon or some other retailer, not Sony.

Is the contract restricted to the buyers, or to the "any 3rd party" of the GPL?

Posted Jan 10, 2026 12:56 UTC (Sat) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

Yes.

But the legal obligations placed on Best Buy or Amazon usually trump the self-imposed guarantee from Sony. I can get my TV fixed by either. Shops will normally (I have an instance where they didn't) replace a faulty new TV on the spot. I'll never buy that brand of TV again, because apparently it was their terms with the shop that made the shop refuse to just swap :-(

If the shop doesn't replace it on the spot (after a few months, that's unlikely) they can send it back to the manufacturer, or I can, and it's a toss-up whether I take it back to the shop or send it back to the manufacturer, but it's my choice. From my PoV, I'd usually prefer the shop to take the hassle.

And on the one occasion I did have real trouble, I simply said to the shop assistant (John Lewis, of all places !!!) "You're in effect charging me for a warranty repair - you need to go and speak to a manager!" (My phone had broken, and the only offer he would make was refund the sale price and expect me to buy a new one full price. The law says repair/refund/replace whatever is acceptable to ME. And having to pay for a replacement was NOT acceptable. :-)

And if I give the TV as a present the manufacturer guarantee is worthless to the recipient. The shop guarantee MAY transfer to the giftee.

Cheers,
Wol

Is the contract restricted to the buyers, or to the "any 3rd party" of the GPL?

Posted Jan 11, 2026 2:04 UTC (Sun) by milesrout (subscriber, #126894) [Link]

This is a separate issue. The reason we have consumer law is that the common law didn't cover these scenarios. So if you bought something from a retailer, you only had rights in contract with the retailer, and generally most of the rights you might expect to have could be contracted out of. If you wanted to make a claim against the manufacturer it would need to be something like a claim in negligence, which was much harder to establish.

In New Zealand, consumer warranties can always be pursued against both retailer and manufacturer, except for a few specific warranties which are only available against the retailer. And it covers gifts as well. They're not contractual rights but statutory rights and it's covered specifically in the Act. But this is just a matter of statute - it has really nothing to do with contract law.

Is the contract restricted to the buyers, or to the "any 3rd party" of the GPL?

Posted Jan 9, 2026 14:14 UTC (Fri) by daroc (editor, #160859) [Link]

I'm not fully certain what the consideration in question is, actually. The judge's tentative ruling doesn't spell that out, but it does say:

Therefore, Plaintiff adequately stated a basis for its contract argument in its FAC and discovery responses.

... so I'm not sure, but the judge seems to think that a contract could exist here, presumably for reasons that are obvious to a member of California bar but that are not obvious to me.

Is the contract restricted to the buyers, or to the "any 3rd party" of the GPL?

Posted Jan 9, 2026 0:06 UTC (Fri) by milesrout (subscriber, #126894) [Link] (1 responses)

My reading of this article (but without knowing anything about US law, and without having read any of the pleadings) is that it's a claim for third-party rights under the contract between the copyright holder and Vizio, not a claim that there is a contract between Vizio and the SFC.

Traditionally, contracts are purely private affairs and a non-party does not have the right to make a claim under the contract just because they're identified in it as a beneficiary. So if I had a contract with you where I gave you $1,000,000 and you gave me a house and also agreed to give my child a house, the orthodox position is that I can sue you for your failure to comply but by child cannot. But in many (most?) places this rule has been partially or wholly abrogated if the intention to benefit a non-party is made clear in the contract. But it really depends on the wording of the statute. In New Zealand, it has to be "a person, designated by name, description, or reference to a class, who is not a party to the deed or contract."

(This is not legal advice etc.)

Is the contract restricted to the buyers, or to the "any 3rd party" of the GPL?

Posted Jan 9, 2026 14:09 UTC (Fri) by daroc (editor, #160859) [Link]

Perhaps I should have made this clearer in the article, but as is commonly the case with lawsuits, the SFC is making multiple arguments. It's arguing that it is a third-party beneficiary of the GPL agreement between the copyright holders and VIZIO, _and_ that a specific contract exists because they accepted a source offer that VIZIO made.

Is the contract restricted to the buyers, or to the "any 3rd party" of the GPL?

Posted Jan 12, 2026 2:14 UTC (Mon) by SLi (subscriber, #53131) [Link] (5 responses)

My understanding is that in most US states, you first look at if the text of the agreement is sufficiently ambiguous. If it doesn't facially allow v both sides' readings, the issue is basically over.

California, I believe, is one of the few states that allow evidence on the intent of the parties even when the text has an unambiguous reading.

This applies to your question in one way, and the full case in another way.

I believe that in most states the judge would ask where the GPL mentions third parties can sue, contrary to the default that they cannot. If you want an agreement enforceable by a third party, you almost always need to say so. In those states, it would be really hard to get a judge to read such a right into the agreement. In California, you can still argue that that was the intent of the parties (which is a funny concept when you apply a text written in 1991 to concepts like installing code on a television). I think this judge has still expressed skepticism, but she doesn't sound decided (and that's for the trial).

In California, I seem to remember it used to be much easier for a third party beneficiary to sue, but there was some recent-ish (90s?) case that restricted it to cases where the intent of the agreement was to benefit the third party (probably defined something like, one party needs to have intended the contract clearly to benefit a third party, and the other side must have understood this). This is to distinguish from cases where the third party benefits from the agreement *incidentally*, but the parties acted in self-interest.

I think this is one reason why the SFC designed this carefully to be a state case in California.

The other application is the construction of the GPL. I personally do not think SFC's construction of the text, requiring a practical ability to modify the software in the TV, is feasible. GPL was written in 1991. It doesn't even mention devices. It's clear it contemplates the software to be something like a binary, and at that time, installing from source would have meant running `make install`. I think it's much more plausible to read the text as requiring Makefiles than signing keys.

Here, too, I think SFC can attempt to have more read into the language with evidence from, say, FSF. Not that I would think it is easy when the FSF itself held for ages religiously the view that it's not an agreement (while here if it's not an agreement, SFC has no case; but, frankly, it's my impression that FSF's "it's not an agreement" was intended probably to avoid some pitfalls around disclaiming warranties, and I think no court ever accepted the argument that they are not agreements).

Now, I do tend to read the December 23 ruling as deciding that getting keys argument against SFC—and, contra SFC, I don't think the judge was misled or rejected something SFC didn't claim, but solidly rejected the argument that (L)GPLv2 can reasonably be read to require cryptographic keys necessary to run modified code on the device. SFC makes a lot of noise about "we never said it must not break something", but I really think the judge ruled that no, installation scripts just cannot be read to encompass things that would allow you to run *any code* on that specific device.

This is not to say that the case has been disaster for SFC. In fact, I think it's been a success. It's already very significant that the judge has decided there was a binding and accepted offer to provide the sources to SFC.

I think the trial is going to be mostly about what triggers that—do you need to go through the rituals of requesting the source, have them ignore and stall for years and then you probably won't sue because that's expensive—or whether anyone who receives the software, and regardless of whether Vizio made the offer (it might be breach of license to not provide, but it doesn't follow anyone can sue to enforce it) has enforceable rights, which likely would make something like class actions on their behalf much more possible.

And that will turn in intent. FSF has said some conflicting things over years, and I believe deciphering that will be one part. And I'm not sure if it's been decided yet how that is to be applied to this case, where it's about the intent of the *parties*. The SFC will obviously argue that there's no other consideration; the code *is* the consideration, and it's obviously for the benefit of everyone. But I don't think it's hard to find FSF quotes saying "only the copyright owners can sue" from the relevant times, and that's quite relevant for the intent of the parties when conducting the transaction.

Is the contract restricted to the buyers, or to the "any 3rd party" of the GPL?

Posted Jan 12, 2026 13:20 UTC (Mon) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link] (4 responses)

> [...] GPL was written in 1991. It doesn't even mention devices [...]

Most legal texts have been extended to cover stuff far beyond what existed when they were first written. Classic example being the US Constitution's bill of rights.

> But I don't think it's hard to find FSF quotes saying "only the copyright owners can sue" from the relevant times, and that's quite relevant for the intent of the parties when conducting the transaction.

Except the FSF isn't a party to this agreement either. :) If you're going to get into their _intent_ then it's going to be more broadly encompassing than what the _actual_ GPLv2 text allows. Hence the v3 "bugfixes".

Meanwhile, as you mentioned earlier, case law (if not actual statue) develops over subsequent years, and can easily result in outcomes that differ from the intent of any of the [un] involved parties.

Is the contract restricted to the buyers, or to the "any 3rd party" of the GPL?

Posted Jan 12, 2026 14:43 UTC (Mon) by SLi (subscriber, #53131) [Link] (3 responses)

[I realized after writing my original message here that most of the stuff I wrote about had been further elaborated by excellent LWN articles since then. I should strive to lag less in my news reading. :-)]

> Most legal texts have been extended to cover stuff far beyond what existed when they were first written. Classic example being the US Constitution's bill of rights.

I don't know if "most" is fair, but sure, this happens. Still, a court probably is going to have some doubts reading a legal text in a way that would have been incomprehensible when it was written (except for the Constitution, but I think that is a an example of a nation deciding that something written by humans is holy scripture and then scrambling to fix the damage by creative reading).

> > But I don't think it's hard to find FSF quotes saying "only the copyright owners can sue" from the relevant times, and that's quite relevant for the intent of the parties when conducting the transaction.

> Except the FSF isn't a party to this agreement either. :) If you're going to get into their _intent_ then it's going to be more broadly encompassing than what the _actual_ GPLv2 text allows. Hence the v3 "bugfixes".

Right, but, that makes it far from irrelevant. It cannot be denied that FSF has been a significant force in *how the document was understood* even in the subsequent years. And that *is* relevant when we look at what the kernel devs would have understood it to mean and what Vizio would have understood it to mean.

From a court's point of view, if the drafter of the license, which was one the most pro-free-software entities in existence and certainly a major influence in how it was understood, said in public that only the copyright owner can sue to redress GPL noncompliance, it genuinely does make it less plausible to argue that those who adopted the license likely understood it to give wider enforcement rights.

Now, in the Vizio case, the trial is happening at least in part precisely *because* of a question over FSF's intent. Here's some text from a tentative ruling from December 4:

---

>> Plaintiff alleges the plain language of the GPLs provides that Plaintiff and other purchase of Defendant’s smart TVs are intended third-party beneficiaries of the GPLs. [...] In [26 March 2024 minute] order, the Court found Defendant had presented evidence that FSF “did not intend for third parties [including Plaintiff] to enforce the rights under the license agreement,” creating a triable issue as to the parties’ intent.

[... the court goes to reject Plaintiff's request for summary adjudication for procedural reasons, but offers this alternative grounds:]

>> Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the new evidence disposes of the factual disputes which caused the Court to deny its prior motion. Even if the Court considers the new evidence, including declarations of Ms. Kooyman and Mr. Kuhn, the new evidence does not negate the triable issues created by conflicting prior statements by the FSF which the Court previously found were sufficient to demonstrate a triable issue.

---

> Meanwhile, as you mentioned earlier, case law (if not actual statue) develops over subsequent years, and can easily result in outcomes that differ from the intent of any of the [un] involved parties.

Yes, but here we have to separate two different things: The agreement's intent and the law that constrains things like what you can actually enforce. The courts will look for the intent. The mechanisms they allow themselves differ a bit by jurisdiction, but no court will read a contract from 1950 saying "The Vendor shall retain exclusive rights to all kernels produced by the operation", to apply to OS kernels in 2026. Courts that rely on plain meaning rely on plain meaning at the time of the writing.

So I believe courts would separate the question into two parts:

1. What was the intent of the parties? Depending on jurisdiction, you only look at the text and only if it's ambiguous consider other evidence; or, I think in California, you allow external evidence even for the proposition that "ok, this is what it facially means, but I can show that it's not how the parties meant it". But the courts will try to get as close as they can to how it would have been read at the time.
2. Now, treat that agreement as an abstract blob of intent, separated from the text. Apply the law to an agreement with that intent. Applying 2026 law may give a different result from applying 1950 law.

Is the contract restricted to the buyers, or to the "any 3rd party" of the GPL?

Posted Jan 12, 2026 15:27 UTC (Mon) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link] (2 responses)

> said in public that only the copyright owner can sue to redress GPL noncompliance

This seems to be a question of *law*, not the FSF's opinion of what they think the law should be. But regardless of their opinions, the legal landscape has changed considerably since the GPLv2 was written -- most prominent change being legally-enforced DRM that renders quite a bit of the GPL's "intent" effectively worthless.

Is the contract restricted to the buyers, or to the "any 3rd party" of the GPL?

Posted Jan 12, 2026 15:36 UTC (Mon) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

> most prominent change being legally-enforced DRM that renders quite a bit of the GPL's "intent" effectively worthless.

Or does it render much DRM unlawful as applied to GPL-licenced code?

Cheers,
Wol

Is the contract restricted to the buyers, or to the "any 3rd party" of the GPL?

Posted Jan 12, 2026 18:39 UTC (Mon) by SLi (subscriber, #53131) [Link]

> > said in public that only the copyright owner can sue to redress GPL noncompliance
> This seems to be a question of *law*, not the FSF's opinion of what they think the law should be. But regardless of their opinions, the legal landscape has changed considerably since the GPLv2 was written -- most prominent change being legally-enforced DRM that renders quite a bit of the GPL's "intent" effectively worthless.

It's not, really. A contract *can* usually deliberately create a right for a third party beneficiary to sue. Thus, the question here is whether GPL does, which goes to the intent of the parties. Intent of the parties can be a question of the law if the text is clear enough, but California allows evidence even against what seems like a clear meaning of a text.

I think you need to look at the intent in a more limited sense. It's not about "what we want to ultimately accomplish". The intent as relevant here, is much more mechanical: Did the parties intend to agree to grant third party beneficiaries the right to sue for specific performance. The "what we want to accomplish" part is relevant to answering that question, but the court ultimately wants to answer how the parties at the time would have answered that very specific question.

Now, there is, or rather was, an argument to be made that, in this specific case, this is something that could not be agreed at all. Vizio tried it and lost.

The SFC carefully styled the claim as a state contract law claim, not a Copyright Law claim. Copyright is exclusively federal; states cannot really add to it or remove from it. Vizio removed the case to a Federal Court, arguing that the claims are fully preempted by the Copyright Act. Essentially, "what is demanded here is sufficiently copyright-like that the states are preempted from doing that".

And that was a good try. The federal judge looked at the case and said that this demand for producing source code is different enough from the normal exclusive rights of the copyright owner that it can properly be analyzed under contract law. Remanded to state court.

Had Vizio won that claim—and I think it plausibly could have—the case would have been over. It would have been moved to the federal court. Then the judge would ask SFC "are you the copyright owner?". "No" -> Ok, you have no standing to sue; only the copyright owner has standing to sue under the Copyright Act.

Why doesn't VIZIO just comply?

Posted Jan 9, 2026 2:46 UTC (Fri) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link] (21 responses)

> but lawsuits are time-consuming and expensive,...

There is a mystery that no trial or judge will ever solve: why doesn't VIZIO just comply and provide the darn GPLv2 sources? They even tried already! So did they change their mind later? Is there some "secret sauce" covered by the GPLv2 that they never intended to release? Or discovered later?

Did the SFC provide some list of missing sources, compilation issues, etc.? Also, did they publish whatever incomplete sources they already got from VIZIO? Or maybe not yet to avoid any risk for the case?

Exceptionally, I'm accepting rumours in the answers :-D But "quality" rumours only!

Why doesn't VIZIO just comply?

Posted Jan 9, 2026 4:57 UTC (Fri) by IanKelling (subscriber, #89418) [Link] (12 responses)

Hanlon's razor: they don't have the sources and don't know how much effort it would take to find them, if they can be found at all.

Why doesn't VIZIO just comply?

Posted Jan 9, 2026 5:59 UTC (Fri) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link] (4 responses)

This sounds likely. I have worked at many companies where resurrecting sources from even a year earlier would have been impossible. It might have been possible to get close by trial and error, but when you consider that the compiler and ancillary sources and libraries may also have changed, it sounds like the kind of nightmare requests I dreaded, partly for having to explain to managerial nitwits what all the problems were.

Why doesn't VIZIO just comply?

Posted Jan 9, 2026 22:38 UTC (Fri) by jengelh (subscriber, #33263) [Link]

>companies where resurrecting sources from even a year earlier would have been impossible

Section 3b says: """a written offer, valid for at least three years""". If unable or unwilling to be bothered to keep records for 3 years, the way out for the seller is sec. 3a: """Accompany it with the complete [...] code""". Doing neither is just lazy, and morally punishable.

Why doesn't VIZIO just comply?

Posted Jan 11, 2026 9:22 UTC (Sun) by cpitrat (subscriber, #116459) [Link] (2 responses)

No, this sounds unlikely. The article explicitly says that the SFC continued to purchase new hardware to see if the situation evolved. I think they would have been happy with a "we don't manage to provide sources for the 2022 appliance but here are the complete sources for the 2025 one".

Why doesn't VIZIO just comply?

Posted Jan 14, 2026 20:12 UTC (Wed) by IanKelling (subscriber, #89418) [Link] (1 responses)

> I think they would have been happy with a "we don't manage to provide sources for the 2022 appliance but here are the complete sources for the 2025 one".

They, as in, SFC? You are mistaken.

Why doesn't VIZIO just comply?

Posted Jan 14, 2026 20:36 UTC (Wed) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link]

Not necessarily. Apologies, sincere mea culpas, and concrete steps to prevent further missteps go a long way towards defusing anger. Courts have been known to take that into account. And in a practical sense, accepting such steps encourages more cooperation in future cases, while being a shrill absolutist wins no favors and only encourages desperate and vindictive resistance from future transgressors.

One need only look at the difference in combat zones or current ICE ventures to see it play out in real life.

Why doesn't VIZIO just comply?

Posted Jan 9, 2026 10:29 UTC (Fri) by jani (subscriber, #74547) [Link]

Either that, or they have another contractual obligation with higher stakes to keep parts of the source secret. And some developers somewhere made the mistake of bundling that with GPL code to just ship it.

Why doesn't VIZIO just comply?

Posted Jan 14, 2026 15:42 UTC (Wed) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link] (5 responses)

They suck and they know they suck and they do not have the faintest idea on the amount of effort it would take to comply and they do not want to in the first place and they despise the SFC.

Do not underestimate the amount of company money an executive is ready to burn to avoid complying with “external” demands. These guys are used to lick the boots of the shareholders and despise everyone else. Companies make expensive mistakes all the time just because being smart conflicted with some manager’s idea of the pecking order.

Why doesn't VIZIO just comply?

Posted Jan 14, 2026 16:56 UTC (Wed) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link] (4 responses)

In the short term yes, very likely.

After many years of legal struggles reported in the media, things start being different. Shareholders read the news too, even the least competent ones.

Why doesn't VIZIO just comply?

Posted Jan 14, 2026 20:16 UTC (Wed) by IanKelling (subscriber, #89418) [Link] (2 responses)

> Shareholders read the news too

There are no shareholders of Vizio. LWN is doing a favor to Walmart and arguably it's readers by still referring to the historical company named Vizio, but it isn't accurate and I personally don't appreciate it. The entire article should be s/Vizio/Walmart/.

Company names

Posted Jan 14, 2026 20:22 UTC (Wed) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] (1 responses)

We used the same name as appears in the court filings, including in the SFC's complaint. To have done anything else would have been confusing at best. I don't quite see how Walmart would benefit from this..?

Company names

Posted Jan 15, 2026 7:40 UTC (Thu) by IanKelling (subscriber, #89418) [Link]

> I don't quite see how Walmart would benefit from this..?

Vizio is just a brand name owned by Walmart now. There are 1000 reasons Walmart wouldn't want to be known as the one funding this lawsuit. Remember that Microsoft funded SCO lawsuits and then they put out an ad campaign about how they <3 Linux? Don't be dense.

Why doesn't VIZIO just comply?

Posted Jan 15, 2026 14:28 UTC (Thu) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link]

After many years your are squarely in sunk cost fallacy land. The sunk cost being not company money (executives do not care) but the reputation of all the managers that let it degenerate into trial instead of complying with the license.

Why doesn't VIZIO just comply?

Posted Jan 9, 2026 8:01 UTC (Fri) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

The problem is probably (a) they don't have the source (quite likely if it's an OEM TV), and (b) as far as the SFC is concerned, they tried in bad faith.

If they'd come clean and said "We didn't know, our supplier hasn't given us the source, please help us comply" the SFC wouldn't have taken this action, but I think Visio has a reputation for ignoring/fobbing off requests for source, which is why they were targetted.

Cheers,
Wol

Why doesn't VIZIO just comply?

Posted Jan 9, 2026 13:14 UTC (Fri) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link]

> If they'd come clean and said "We didn't know, our supplier hasn't given us the source, please help us comply" the SFC wouldn't have taken this action, but I think Visio has a reputation for ignoring/fobbing off requests for source, which is why they were targetted.

No, Vizio would never actually say that, for the simple reason that it's an admission of guilt. And per the SFC this suit was filed after 2-3 years of attempts to go about this the nice way.

Vizio is shipping GPL-covered binaries; *they* have the obligation to produce the complete corresponding source code one in one of the ways enumerated in the GPL. "But we don't have access to it!" doesn't absolve them of that legal requirement.

Why doesn't VIZIO just comply?

Posted Jan 9, 2026 17:52 UTC (Fri) by tbird20d (subscriber, #1901) [Link] (5 responses)

I would like to see the list of sources that the SFC considers missing or incomplete. My guess is that one sticking point for the SFC has been the program used to install signed firmware image onto the TV. Now that the judge has ruled that reinstallation is not a requirement of the GPL, it may be that such an installation program is out-of-scope. That doesn't mean that all installation scripts are out-of-scope, but that one might be, for a few different reasons.

If there's more missing than that, it would be interesting to get the details.

Why doesn't VIZIO just comply?

Posted Jan 11, 2026 10:26 UTC (Sun) by ssmith32 (subscriber, #72404) [Link] (2 responses)

As far as the trial goes, hat seems unlikely - at least per the article, the code vizio provided didn't _compile_ so installation isn't the sticking point (yet). But as a general idea, I agree.

My understanding was what the judge ruled out was not reinstallation per se, but rather that reinstallation must result in a working TV.

The more likely reason for vizio not providing the source is far simpler - if the SFC can get a complete set of source code, as defined by the GPL, they know that someone will eventually figure out how to make a working reinstall.

And since it is likely that vizio, as with many TV companies, particularly ones that don't compete on quality, see advertising as the next thing to "unlock growth", having users able to turn their smart TV into a dumb one, or worse, a smart one sans advertising, the ability to reinstall represents an strategic business threat.

Unfortunately, in the US judicial system, the true matter being debated can only be determined by the big hole that no one is talking about.

The GPL was written to, fundamentally, ensure end users retained control of their hardware. Unfortunately, in this scenario, this runs smack up against the business model most TV companies are pursuing nowadays: advertising.

Why doesn't VIZIO just comply?

Posted Jan 11, 2026 10:37 UTC (Sun) by ssmith32 (subscriber, #72404) [Link]

My bad, just catching up on LWN, this was already covered, and covered far, far better, in a previous article - a big thanks to LWN for these last two wonderfully written and nuanced articles on the subject.

Why doesn't VIZIO just comply?

Posted Jan 12, 2026 2:31 UTC (Mon) by jepsis (subscriber, #130218) [Link]

Doing advertising in the Linux kernel??

Why doesn't VIZIO just comply?

Posted Jan 12, 2026 23:51 UTC (Mon) by ossguy (subscriber, #82918) [Link] (1 responses)

Sure, there is lots missing beyond any of that. Vizio has at least half a dozen kernel modules whose modinfo shows "license: GPL" that they haven't provided any source code for, as an example, among many other binaries where source code is missing.

Why doesn't VIZIO just comply?

Posted Jan 15, 2026 1:29 UTC (Thu) by ocrete (subscriber, #107180) [Link]

Is there somewhere a list of what those modules are?

I'm curious to see what SoCs they're using.

Eugene Volokh of the Volokh Conspiracy

Posted Jan 9, 2026 5:42 UTC (Fri) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link]

Prof. Volokh is a First Amendment free speech expert, not a copyright specialist, but likes to say the lawyers' true super power is the ability to turn every question into a question of procedure.

Could companies twist contract law to their benefit?

Posted Jan 12, 2026 14:35 UTC (Mon) by Deubeuliou (subscriber, #50509) [Link] (2 responses)

If the judge rules that contract law allows end-users to enforce the GPL (even when no offer is made to provide the sources), could companies selling appliances get away with it by putting in their EULA language like "the Customer relinquishes its right to request the source code" ?

Could companies twist contract law to their benefit?

Posted Jan 12, 2026 15:30 UTC (Mon) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

NO. From the GPL "You are not allowed to add any further restrictions", and also the preamble about the four freedoms.

Okay, we have all this argument about whether customers are allowed to exercise the rights the GPL gives them, but it is quite clear that it is absolutely fundamental to the licence, that this is an inalienable right that the licence gives customers. I know that many copyright holders don't want to make a fuss, but this is such a clear breach of copyright, that SOMEONE is almost bound to take them to the cleaners over it. It's pretty much an indefensible violation of the GPL - so much so that some copyright holder or another is going to take a slam-dunk punt on a lawsuit - probably the SFC or the FSF at a minimum, and the Free Software world will be cheering them on.

Cheers,
Wol

Could companies twist contract law to their benefit?

Posted Jan 12, 2026 15:39 UTC (Mon) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

Oh - I also forgot to add - I think post-hoc EULAs are pretty much illegal in Europe.

If I *buy* something, and then have to agree to stuff I wasn't expecting to, before I can use it, that falls foul of consumer protection left right and centre. The very first bit of legislation being "fit for purpose".

Cheers,
Wol

Two Kernels?

Posted Jan 22, 2026 22:36 UTC (Thu) by jandryuk (subscriber, #103122) [Link] (2 responses)

"""
TVs that include copies of the Linux kernel (two different versions of the kernel, actually, with one running as a guest of the other)
"""

Is there any more info on how they are using the two Kernels?

Two Kernels?

Posted Jan 22, 2026 23:16 UTC (Thu) by excors (subscriber, #95769) [Link] (1 responses)

There's some explanation in the SFC's complaint (https://usethesource.sfconservancy.org/tmp_vizio_docs/sof...):

> VIZIO’s SmartCast user interface and streaming platform is based on a popular distribution of Linux called Ubuntu.
> ...
> The [other] SmartCast operating system is based on a custom version of the Linux kernel provided by VIZIO’s chip supplier.
> ...
> One Linux operating system provides basic functionality for the Smart TVs’ basic operation. The other Linux operating system, based on Ubuntu and entirely separate from the first operating system, handles the SmartCast user interface and streaming platform. This second Ubuntu-based operating system runs “on top of” the first, lower-level operating system. Such “virtualization,” where one operating system runs on top of another, is common in modern computing.

(I'd guess that's to separate the platform-dependent and platform-independent parts of their system, so they can have a single Ubuntu image that's shared across all TV models, to simplify updates of their streaming platform code.)

Two Kernels?

Posted Jan 23, 2026 3:30 UTC (Fri) by jandryuk (subscriber, #103122) [Link]

Interesting. Yes, I think your idea makes sense. Thanks for sharing the link.