Lots of courts think differently. In particular, Visio already tried to move the case from a state court to a federal court, on the grounds that this is only about copyright (over which apparently only federal courts have jurisdiction). The federal court denied that, saying that there was indeed a contract, and thus it should be sorted out in the state courts.

https://sfconservancy.org/news/2022/may/16/vizio-remand-win/

The only licence Vizo had to use the GPL software and distribute it to their users required them to make the code available to them on request.

If they don't do that, they are in violation of copyright (since nothing else gives them permission to copy and distribute it).

This article is not about whether Smartcast TV has all the neccessary licenses to be distributed. It's not the copyright owner of a dependency suing them.

They are being sued by the SFC, which has been deputized by the actual copyright holders to act on their behalf: https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/#linux

Except in this case, SFC are not suing on behalf of copyright holders, but as a third-party beneficiary of the GPL contract between copyright holders and Vizio.

Well, first, yes, you can, if you can establish that you are an intended third-party beneficiary.

But, more to the point, that’s not the basis for the tentative ruling under discussion, so its irrelevant to whether the decision makes sense.

If Vizio used GPL licensed software and did not follow its license rules, then they’re the ones breaking the license terms and GPL licensing of the product was always implied.

Not following the license terms have a name, stealing.

They are clearly committing copyright infringement, but plenty of a copyright infringement happens in practice and it is tolerated by the copyright owners. This is not what I am objecting to though. I am objecting to the idea that Vizio has a contract with a user to give them the source code of their proprietary software. If Vizio ignore a license, in my mind there is no way for that license to establish a contract between Vizio and a user. How can there be a meeting of minds when Vizio's mind disagrees with the contract.

Isn’t it more that they have a contract with the developers of the GPL:ed code? But sure they can decide to break that contract and take the consequences of committing copyright infringement.

I understand, it’s not a direct contract, but they’re infringing on copyrighted material to create their software and not following what they agreed.

Expecting to benefit from copyright in their own product while ignoring the license of all the products they used, that’s what bothers me, it’s hypocrisy. It’s open sourced software, free like speech, not like beer.

PS: I didn’t vote on any comment.

>they’re infringing on copyrighted material

Sure.

>not following what they agreed.

They may have never agreed.

>that’s what bothers me

You can feel that way, but it's up to the copyright owner to decide if they want to go after such an infringement or if they are okay with it.

What’s you’re saying is asinine and simply against the GPL terms. Using the GPL licensed software code without following its restrictions is theft.

Vizio then should stop using GPL licensed software or reach to a license agreement with them BEFORE selling any product that contains GPL license because that’s the license of the code they’re using.

And every youtuber should get a license for the video games they show, and every X user should get a license for the memes they upload.

Many games these days come with explicit terms allowing streaming of the game content, including the music. But this, and your argument, is not really very related to the case at hand.

In addition to the alleged GPL violations, there is a real contract dispute here. Vizio also included a written offer of source code to the GPLd components of their software with the television. The SFC tried to avail themselves of that offer by writing to the address given, but Vizio denied their request. It’s a straight forward open and shut contract case: Vizio made a credible offer (and thus created a contract) and then failed to uphold their end of the deal.

Bunch of YouTubers making some videos don’t change the copyright law, and a bad example doesn’t negate the fact that Vizio stole GPL licensed software by not abiding with the terms.

Debian previously got legal advice that screenshots (and presumably video) are derivative works of the apps/games that they are of, but that production/distribution of them under fair use doctrine may be allowed.

https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/1218244323.4240.7.came...

The memes might be infringement though, but no-one cares to enforce copyright there.

In this specific case there _is_ a direct contract independent of the GPL. The TV came with a notice stating that it used GPL’d software and offering to convey the source to anyone who wrote them. That’s a valid contract, which the SFC tried to act on. Vizio rebuffed them, so one of the issues before the court is a literal contract violation.

When it suits a large company's interest, they are always providing a license to use the software inherent in their product rather than the customer purchasing and owning it. If they were allowed to turn around and claim otherwise only when it suited them the situation would be completely arbitrary.

So which is it, and under what circumstances, I would ask you.

Sure, ignorance of the law is not an excuse, but contracts are not law. In fact, the law requires a "meeting of the minds" as a required element of a contract. Although, the modern bar for this is extremely low, and courts will judge this based on manifestations of assent.

That being said, Vizio has a high paid legal department and is certainly not ignorant of the fact they ship third-party licensed software. They are simply ignoring it.

Courts would say "look you're professional organization well aware of software licensing landscape and you're using it, so you have agreed"

>How can there be a meeting of minds when Vizio's mind disagrees with the contract.

Because "modern contract doctrine requires only objective manifestations of assent"

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/meeting_of_the_minds

Courts started doing this because people were playing dumb in court to get out of contracts: "oh I didn't know I was agreeing to that"

So instead, courts started calling bullshit on it, and today judge things as: "look, you went along with the transaction as if you agreed to it and a reasonable person in your situation should have known you were agreeing to it, and that's good enough"

It sounds like you’re not aware of all of the facts of this specific case. The TV came with a notice stating that it used GPL’d software and offering to convey the source to anyone who wrote them. That’s a valid contract, which the SFC tried to act on. Vizio rebuffed them, so one of the issues before the court is a literal contract violation.

They "conveyed" the software, according to GPL wording. They violation is towards the original software's authors.

That’s true, but the contract thing is also separately true. The TV came with a notice stating that it used GPL’d software and offering to convey the source to anyone who wrote them. That’s a valid contract, which the SFC tried to act on. Vizio rebuffed them, so one of the issues before the court is a literal contract violation.

Well...

"Plaintiff argues the subject smart TV included a statement in the “License List” menu that it “may contain executable codes and libraries that are subject to the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL), GNU Lesser General License (LGPL) … and other open source licenses. VIZIO offers to provide applicable source code upon request for a processing fee covering the cost of fulfilling the distribution….” (Motion, p. 8.) Plaintiff contends its representative accepted such offer by requesting the applicable source code in a live chat with a Vizio representative. (p. 9; UMFs 8-11.) "

> If Vizo never licensed the software to you under the GPL [...]

That may be true.

> [...] you can't say they violated the GPL.

That does not necessarily follow.

If they used GPL-licensed code in their product, they may be obligated to provide the source code to that product's consumer.