[mike_d]

A lawsuit against Vizio for GPL violation cannot compel them to open or release software from their OEMs. For example you are never going to get a functional driver for the display panel made by Panasonic.

It isn't even clear that Vizio would be able to comply with GPL enforcement, since they largely just OEM TVs built by AmTran in Taiwan and don't do much more than slap a logo on it.

[cycomanic]

That's a pretty strong statement to make.

It would highly depend on the contract between Vizio and their suppliers no? In particular if the lawsuit finds that anything from the supplier (like e.g. the display driver) is part of the GPL violation the contract likely contain clauses that would force the supplier to provide source code. Otherwise Vizio has grounds to sue their supplier.

That's the beauty about going after the big customer facing companies, it offers the strongest leverage.

[mike_d]

Suing a rebranding company is actually the dumbest move. If I buy Ford trucks wholesale and put my own logo on the grill and my own software on the entertainment system that uses GPL code in violation of the license, you can sue me until the cows come home but you are never going to get all the other software Ford has on that car.

The idea that a court could compel Vizio to provide enough source code that you could run your own OS on the TV is pure fantasy. You would need to obtain binary blobs for firmware and drivers from an original TV, and distributing them would in turn be software piracy.

[pabs3]

It happened with routers, the OpenWRT project is a result of GPL enforcement against Linksys. There is no reason the same can't happen with TVs and other devices. If the company can't comply with the GPL, then at minimum the lawsuit could be transferred to the suppliers, or at worst the company can stop using Linux and other software they violate the licenses of. There are plenty of non-copyleft or proprietary projects they can use too. Whatever software Vizio use that isn't subject to GPL requirements can be rewritten or replaced with other components. The main thing is that the GPL code get released.

[lrvick]

You could copy the blobs from your own rooted TV, as with Switch jailbreaks.

[jeroenhd]

> It isn't even clear that Vizio would be able to comply with GPL enforcement, since they largely just OEM TVs built by AmTran in Taiwan and don't do much more than slap a logo on it.

They should've looked better at their contract, then. It's not the consumer's task to make sure these companies and their suppliers stick to their licenses. If their suppliers ship software that's not compliant (i.e. the vendor doesn't follow GPL's requirements) then Vizio is not allowed to ship them either.

If they can't comply with the license, they shouldn't be allowed to be sold in jurisdictions where the GPL is considered legally binding; after all, they are violating copyright. Any damages from their vendors' malpractices can be resolved in a separate lawsuit if Vizio wants to hold them accountable but you can't hide behind your vendors to sell illegal wares.

As GPLv3 states:

> All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met.

If they can't or won't release the GPL source code, they can't legally ship the software as they haven't met the requirements for their license and if they do, authors of the GPL'd code could sue them for copyright violations.

In fact, this paragraph could bring them into even hotter water:

> However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a) provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and finally terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the copyright holder fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means prior to 60 days after the cessation.

> Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after your receipt of the notice.

In other words, if copyright holders notify them of their violation and Vizio doesn't act in a timely manner, copyright holders could permanently retract their GPL licensed code from Vizio. Should a particularly important Linux developer choose to do so then that could effectively deny Vizio the right to ship Linux on any device it sells (to areas where GPL is upheld, such as the USA or Germany).

[mike_d]

Sure. But someone attempting a lawsuit would be better served naming AmTran/Foxxcon as a defendant.

[pabs3]

Someone buying a TV doesn't have any relationship with AmTran/Foxxcon, doesn't receive code from them. If the lawsuit was about copyright infringement (it is about third-party beneficiary rights of users under the GPL), then suing AmTran/Foxxcon would be the way to go, but they are in China anyway and suing them would likely be hard, so the best you could get is blocking AmTran/Foxxcon based products at customs.