In reality the license just puts extra restrictions on distribution of the software and how derivative works can be licensed.
The copyright owner is the only person who can sue people for violating the license of the software they created.
Copyright owners are not forced to stop people from infringing their copyrights. If they want they can allow people to infringe their copyright without punishment. Sometimes they just don't care and sometimes copyright infringement can be beneficial for the owner.
> The copyright owner is the only person who can sue people for violating the license of the software they created.
For the copyright violations, yes. But I'd imagine a skilled lawyer could make a suit against a company for a violation of the contract between the consumer and company on the grounds that the consumer knowingly bought a product that included those clauses and the company did not follow through with delivering the product as sold.
That wouldn't be a GPL suit then, it would be a warranty suit. John Deere could plausibly just refund someone for their tractor, and continue violating the GPL.
The idea that the GPL is also a contract is being tested in California. So far the federal court (which hears copyright cases) agreed to send the case back to state court (which hears contract cases).
"In reality the license just puts extra restrictions on distribution of the software and how derivative works can be licensed."
Actually, copyright is now implicit. There is NO right to distribute software and NO right to create derivative works. Copyright gives those rights exclusively to the copyright holder.
The GPL makes it legally possible to distribute and create derivative works. Without that license, you have no such right, and can be sued (for damages) by the copyright holder. Proving damages can be difficult.
In any case, the license is the only thing that allows that behavior. Without it, there is no right to do it, and thus restrictions are moot.
There is a fun thought experiment where one takes a copyright license and rewrite it in terms of only positive permissions. Since copyright law by default forbids everything, every aspect of a copyright license is a form of granted permission.
The GPL would then be a number of permissions similar to:
You are hereby given permission to give other people a all-permissions-granted patent license of all patents that you own, and along side that license you are given permission to include my copyrighted source code, and optionally in addition to that source code you may then add a compiled version along side that source code.
No restrictions and depending on how one want to interpret "in addition/along side", not even a condition.
That's the stated rationale for the license, but not the legal framework that it is recognized under. "Copyleft" licenses are legally copyright licenses, and a violation of the GPL is simply a copyright violation. Whoever bring a suit must have standing to sue for copyright violations.
The idea that the GPL is also a contract is being tested in California. So far the federal court (which hears copyright cases) agreed to send the case back to state court (which hears contract cases).
It's being tested, but it remains to be seen what California courts think about that idea, and even if they do recognize it that way, it's not exactly clear how they'd remedy it.
I expect Conservancy will push for either compliance (preferable) or preventing Vizio from using Linux, or potentially assisting Conservancy in going after whichever hardware vendor BSP their violation came from.
The other things the article mentions aren't actual remedies to the problem of a GPL violation though and as just a third-party beneficiary that is non-profit and who can only get source code benefits, they wouldn't really be entitled to money except maybe their costs in bringing the suit or a refund of their TV purchase. As the post says, the monetary remedy option would also apply to everyone else who bought a TV, or Conservancy could buy another TV and sue again; seems unlikely the court would allow such an unlimited monetary remedy. So the only options are then fixing the compliance, or nothing. But then "court voids contract" doesn't sound like a great headline either, so maybe the specific performance option is the only option. Seems like "court voids third-party beneficiary aspect of contracts" wouldn't be a likely precedent either.
It likely wouldn’t be “court voids contract” it would most likely be “it isn’t a contract”.
It is a bit of a stretch to even say that the GPL even has the required elements of a contract between SFC and Vizio. (And the GPL was never designed to work this way anyway.)
How do you offer someone a contract without ever sending it to them? How do you argue that Visio concurrently offered the terms of the GPL and ignored it? Either there’s an offer or there’s not
It seems to me that Vizio simply ignored the GPL, and the issue is precisely that they didn’t offer it to their customers. Yes, they were supposed to under copyright law, but they didn’t.
At the end of the day, for this to be a valid contract, it’ll have to be shown that:
* Vizio offered the source code to SFC (did this actually happen?)
* SFC accepted that contract (did this happen?)
* there was an exchange of value (this one is easy: the TV)
* that they were capable of entering into the contract (again, easy)
* that there was a meeting of the minds (it might be a defense here that Vizio was just blindly copy and pasting shit!)
If there is one, the "GPL contract" in the case would be between Vizio and Linux copyright holders, not Vizio and SFC, since SFC are a third-party in this case.
You are indeed right that Vizio can probably get around SFC current suit by arguing that they did not enter into the GPL contract and just deliberately decided to use the code without a copyright license, but that then opens them up to higher damages under the inevitable copyright lawsuit.
> Simply put, GPL does not allow you to request "source code" for what you never used.
Sort of. The relevant section is:
> 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
> a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
> b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
If the company elects to go with option b, then yes - the GPL does allow you to request "source code" for what you never used.
If they have not done a) or b) then I guess he cannot request b) because they have not done the written offer, at which point it is up to the copyright owner to require that they do a) or b) or what?
Provide damages of some sort, stop distributing program?
In principle, maybe, but in practice, it's very hard to imagine that you would have any standing to bring a suit as a third party.
If you and I sign a contract whereby you agree to pay 5$ to any stranger who calls you some name, I very much doubt a stranger who does so and doesn't receive their dollars would have any right to sue you. Of course, I could sue you for failing to perform the agreed contract.
The idea that the GPL is also a contract is being tested in California. So far the federal court (which hears copyright cases) agreed to send the case back to state court (which hears contract cases).
It's still a contract between the copyright holder and the redistributor, not between the redistributor and anyone in the world.
It's also not a contract between the distributor and the person receiving a copy from them, since contracts can't be automatically assigned to pieces of property, they must happen between people.
I very much doubt the SFC's case will succeed. I fully expect that they will be found not to have any standing to sue as someone who is in no way a party of the GPL. By the way, it's obvious that it wouldn't be tried by a copyright court, as the SFC claims no copyright over the code in question. I expect that the lower court will now confirm that they have no standing under contract law either, and the case will be dismissed.
Note that I fully support the idea of a right to repair. I just don't think it can be achieved in this way, and believe instead it must be enshrined in legislation and state regulations, not crafty uses of copyright law.
Sure, in this case Conservancy aren't a party to the GPL contract, but as a recipient of GPLed binary code from Vizio they are a third-party beneficiary of the contract between Vizio and copyright holders.
Actually Conservancy also are representatives of copyright holders in Linux and other software used on Vizio devices. So if they lose the third-party beneficiary suit, there will be a copyright angle they can pursue as well.
GPL lawsuits aren't about hardware repair, they are about software repair and the rights given to end-users by the GPL license/contract. You don't need source code to replace broken components on a tractor, you need repairer/vendor software that performs pairing of DRM-locked parts.
I also found his rant videos not to my taste. He is a pretty abrasive person and he seems to spend most of his time making rant videos these days.
Having said all that, I support the right to repair movement. I commend him for being a gadfly and a leader on this issue. The right of ownership of the things you buy and the right to repair what you own are extremely important, fundamental rights. Without them, we are all reduced to tenants in a neo-feudalist dystopia.
He does positive things sometimes as well, he said that it’s important to not only cover the negative things but also the positive things but that when he does people call him a shill
Isn't the whole point of the GPL that the user has rights to the software?