[Octokiddie]

> In October of 2021 the Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) decided to launch what is believed to be the first significant open source lawsuit based in contract rather than in copyright. Critically, the SFC’s case argued that anyone who benefits from the General Public License (GPL), not just the authors of the software, should be able to bring a lawsuit to enforce the terms of the GPL.

This seems to be the key issue. It's the first time I've heard of a case in which the party claiming harm was not the author of the software.

It raises a lot of questions - for example around linking. My understanding of the issue with respect to Linux was that Linus won't enforce GPL against those who link, therefore, Linux is immune to the reciprocity requirement when just linking occurs.

This new case seems to raise the issue of whether those other than authors of GPL software can bring suit under contract rather than copyright for linking to GPL-licensed software.

[dagmx]

Afaik this case isn’t about linked libs. It’s that the Vizio devices ship with Linux but don’t provide sources.

In theory they don’t need to provide sources to any of their libraries that link against Linux as Linux licenses glibc as LGPL.

But they do need to provide the Linux core that they use along with any modifications.

[cjbprime]

AIUI: This case isn't about kernel modules, but it re-opens the question of what to do about closed-source kernel modules, because the status quo is "Linus doesn't want to sue people even though closed-source kernel modules might be illegal", and now you don't have to be Linus to sue people anymore.

[matheusmoreira]

Linus Torvalds enjoys an incredibly good negotiating position relative to these corporations. Simply put, he's got massive leverage in the form of Linux's staggering development speed: he gets like a zillion patches an hour. He maximizes that leverage by purposefully keeping the kernel APIs and ABIs unstable so they can't reliably target it without mainlining their drivers as GPL code in the kernel tree.

Corporations modifying Linux have the choice of playing ball and publishing source code or being forced to play catch up with the constantly changing kernel until the end of time which is obviously unsustainable and ends with them getting left behind and eating dust. This manifests as shitty products which run outdated tainted kernels and never get updated.

That's what leads Linus to be "lenient" towards these corporations and their violations. He thinks their products are mere toys that don't matter in the grand scheme of things. I remember reading an email on LWN where he used that exact word to describe them. Toys.

Obviously, as the users of these shitty products, we think differently. We'd very much enjoy it if some courts were to force these corporations to publish their source code under the GPL. Then we'd be able to have actual quality drivers instead of their proprietary nonsense, and we'd be able to run the latest mainline kernel on our devices.

[drewg123]

we'd be able to run the latest mainline kernel on our devices

GPL or no GPL, we're talking about a TV here. I seriously doubt that they have a bootloader that's willing to run unsigned code. So maybe you'd be able to inspect what is running on your TV, but I doubt you'd be able to actually run your own kernel on it without some sort of jailbreak.

[cjbprime]

nvidia has maintained a proprietary kernel module for 20+ years. I don't think anyone thinks they're a toy.

[PH95VuimJjqBqy]

And we all know Linus' opinion of NVidia! (I'm kidding)

I think the issue is the sheer number of devices nvidia has vs a tv manufacturer.

[p_l]

Periodical reminder that copyright and GPL do not talk about linking.

At all.

Even taking contractual position instead of copyright doesn't change the part where it does not matter nothing regarding whether you link or not with GPLed code that is established by the text of the GPL.

What's important, and what RMS used to bully projects in the past into changing licenses, is whether the work would be considered derivative - as in, would it exist without inclusiom of GPLed code? (Very simplified depiction - in practice that's something a court would have to decide).

At the same time it means that if you use a GPLed library that just implements an otherwise existing interface and it's completely conceivable that your code isn't derived from it, then it doesn't matter that you linked. But it can also mean that just separating with a network connection also isn't enough to break derivative-ness.

[p91paul]

> Periodical reminder that copyright and GPL do not talk about linking.

> At all.

GPLv2 does not, but both LGPL and GPLv3 explicitly mention linking in the license text, so this part of your comment is factually false. However, it's mostly used as an example; I agree any work with strict dependencies to a GPLed work might be considered a derivative even if the dependency is not expressed by linking.