Apparently the actual case was to be argued in a session starting at 10am pacific, with their case as number 11.
Just skimming it, it looks like the judge grants 1 of 3 requests:
1. Vizio does have a "contractual duty" to provide the source code to SFC of any GPLv2 or LGPLv2 software
2/3. Vizio is not required to either provide the source code or an offer to give the source code to all buyers of the tv of any GPLv2 (issue 2) or LGPLv2 (issue 3).
Basically, if I'm reading it correctly, they have to give you the source code if you ask for it, but they don't have to tell you that you can ask.
ETA: Oh, but 2 and 3 are denied due to some technicality about how the SFC filed for summary judgements, without making any comment about whether they would have succeeded if they'd filed things another way.
And 1 is granted because somewhere in some menu on the TV said they could request it.
So what happens if Visio removes that menu option offering to give you the source code, and someone else files the motions properly? Not clear.
In other words, it doesn't look to me like it sets a real precedent either way.
> Basically, if I'm reading it correctly, they have to give you the source code if you ask for it, but they don't have to tell you that you can ask.
I think the bigger picture is more subtle than that. You, the buyer do not have a cause of action if they fail to tell you that you can ask.
They would, however be in violation of copyright if they don't tell buyers that they are entitled to ask for a copy of the source code because the license requires that they do so, and nothing else gives them permission to distributed the covered software. Any relevant copyright holder would have a cause of action in that case, but the SFC is not a copyright holder in this case.
I dont remember if we ever told our customers that they could ask for our code for one of the products a former employer made, but I do recall one customer did eventually ask for it, and we obliged. I don't know much of the details as to why they wanted it. Just know it was a GPL licensed project. Heck I think we even gave them pieces that were not even GPL based.
> Basically, if I'm reading it correctly, they have to give you the source code if you ask for it, but they don't have to tell you that you can ask.
Sounds like GPL v4 is inbound, a GPL license that forces you to inform your customer that your product uses a GPL licensed software by putting an image of Richard Stallman somewhere in your startup screen.
Putting asides the legal details, things must be pretty bad inside Vizio if they'd rather go to court than release the code. Like they can't release the code because they don't know where it is.
SFC's announcement:
https://sfconservancy.org/news/2025/dec/04/tentative-vizio-r...
Apparently the actual case was to be argued in a session starting at 10am pacific, with their case as number 11.
Just skimming it, it looks like the judge grants 1 of 3 requests:
1. Vizio does have a "contractual duty" to provide the source code to SFC of any GPLv2 or LGPLv2 software
2/3. Vizio is not required to either provide the source code or an offer to give the source code to all buyers of the tv of any GPLv2 (issue 2) or LGPLv2 (issue 3).
Basically, if I'm reading it correctly, they have to give you the source code if you ask for it, but they don't have to tell you that you can ask.
ETA: Oh, but 2 and 3 are denied due to some technicality about how the SFC filed for summary judgements, without making any comment about whether they would have succeeded if they'd filed things another way.
And 1 is granted because somewhere in some menu on the TV said they could request it.
So what happens if Visio removes that menu option offering to give you the source code, and someone else files the motions properly? Not clear.
In other words, it doesn't look to me like it sets a real precedent either way.
> Basically, if I'm reading it correctly, they have to give you the source code if you ask for it, but they don't have to tell you that you can ask.
I think the bigger picture is more subtle than that. You, the buyer do not have a cause of action if they fail to tell you that you can ask.
They would, however be in violation of copyright if they don't tell buyers that they are entitled to ask for a copy of the source code because the license requires that they do so, and nothing else gives them permission to distributed the covered software. Any relevant copyright holder would have a cause of action in that case, but the SFC is not a copyright holder in this case.
I dont remember if we ever told our customers that they could ask for our code for one of the products a former employer made, but I do recall one customer did eventually ask for it, and we obliged. I don't know much of the details as to why they wanted it. Just know it was a GPL licensed project. Heck I think we even gave them pieces that were not even GPL based.
> Basically, if I'm reading it correctly, they have to give you the source code if you ask for it, but they don't have to tell you that you can ask.
Sounds like GPL v4 is inbound, a GPL license that forces you to inform your customer that your product uses a GPL licensed software by putting an image of Richard Stallman somewhere in your startup screen.
> license that forces you to inform your customer
This is what I love about the original 4-clause BSD license.
Putting asides the legal details, things must be pretty bad inside Vizio if they'd rather go to court than release the code. Like they can't release the code because they don't know where it is.