Yearslong Fight Over Users' Right To Tweak Smart TV Software Heads To Trial (arstechnica.com)
- Reference: 0183299547
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/26/05/20/1625205/yearslong-fight-over-users-right-to-tweak-smart-tv-software-heads-to-trial
- Source link: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/05/inside-the-fight-to-force-vizio-to-share-linux-based-source-code-for-its-tvs-os/
> The outcome could reverberate across the industry. Because many of today's popular smart TV operating systems are Linux-based, the case may help determine how much control many owners have over their sets. Access to the full code would allow users to make meaningful changes to how their TVs work, including limiting ads or deactivating automatic content recognition.
>
> [...] The Software Freedom Conservancy argues it has the right to Vizio OS's source code because it owns several Vizio TVs and because the operating system is based on Ubuntu, a Linux distribution. (SFC employees bought seven Vizio TVs from 2018 to 2021 after getting complaints about Vizio not sharing its TVs' source code, according to the complaint.) In general, the Linux kernel is provided under the terms of GPLv2, [3]as noted by [4]kernel.org , which is run by the [5]Linux Kernel Organization .
>
> SFC's lawsuit alleges that Vizio breached GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 by failing to make available the complete source code for Vizio OS. The case is currently in the Orange County Superior Court of the State of California. The lawsuit targets Vizio specifically, but the impact could extend to other Linux-based smart TV OSes such as LG's webOS, Samsung's Tizen, and Roku's Roku OS. "We expect all companies who distribute Linux and other software using right-to-repair agreements like the GPL in their products would comply with these agreements," Denver Gingerich, the director of compliance at SFC, told Ars. [...] SFC expects a ruling within three to six months of the conclusion of the trial, which is currently scheduled for August 10.
[1] https://yro.slashdot.org/story/25/12/18/1949229/judge-hints-vizio-tv-buyers-may-have-rights-to-source-code-licensed-under-gpl
[2] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/05/inside-the-fight-to-force-vizio-to-share-linux-based-source-code-for-its-tvs-os/
[3] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/license-rules.html#kernel-licensing
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel.org
[5] https://www.kernel.org/nonprofit.html
Vizio's Arguments (Score:5, Interesting)
> nothing in the text of the GPLs suggests that third parties have the right to enforce alleged violations of the GPLs. Further, the FSF has made clear that it never intended third-party enforcement, stating publicly that ‘the copyright holders of the software are the ones who have the power to enforce the GPL’ and that ‘[i]f you think you see a violation of the GNU GPL [or] LGPL . . . you should send a precise report to the copyright holders of the packages that are being wrongly distributed . . . [because] we cannot act on our own where we do not hold copyright.
Maybe...in that case perhaps the authors of the software in question (Linux kernel, BusyBox, a handful of GNU utilities) should get involved to squash that argument.
> Vizio also argued that GPL is a software license, not a contract, so the company has no contractual obligation to provide SFC with Vizio OS’s source code, even if SFC were considered a third-party beneficiary of GPLv2 LGPLv2.
Heh, good luck with that one. Furthermore, I don't think that's a precedent that any proprietary software wants set
This is gonna be a good one!
Re:Vizio's Arguments (Score:5, Interesting)
>> Vizio also argued that GPL is a software license, not a contract, so the company has no contractual obligation to provide SFC with Vizio OS’s source code, even if SFC were considered a third-party beneficiary of GPLv2 LGPLv2.
> Heh, good luck with that one. Furthermore, I don't think that's a precedent that any proprietary software wants set
Great, so Vizio is violating the license and has no right to reproduce the software. I believe the statutory damage limit for each infraction is $150k? That's gotta be a few billion to split amongst the various projects that are having their copyright violated by Vizio.
Re: (Score:2)
> Great, so Vizio is violating the license and has no right to reproduce the software. I believe the statutory damage limit for each infraction is $150k? That's gotta be a few billion to split amongst the various projects that are having their copyright violated by Vizio.
Times each unit sold.
Anyhow, there's no right to tinker with the TV firmware - it can be as locked down as you want it if the software is all GPLv2 or so. It's why GPLv3 has the "Anti-TiVoization" clause in it. TiVo (which is still around) lo
Re: (Score:2)
>> Great, so Vizio is violating the license and has no right to reproduce the software. I believe the statutory damage limit for each infraction is $150k? That's gotta be a few billion to split amongst the various projects that are having their copyright violated by Vizio.
> Times each unit sold.
No, statutory damages are [1]per work [cornell.edu]. The minimum is $200 if the violator could show reasonable cause to have believed that the infringement was fair use, and the maximum is $150,000 in cases of willful infringement. The nominal range is $750 to $30,000.
To receive more than that requires showing actual damages. What this means is that even if there are a hundred GPLed projects whose licenses are being violated, short of proving willful infringement, apart from in injunction against further violations, the
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504
Re: (Score:2)
>> Vizio also argued that GPL is a software license, not a contract, so the company has no contractual obligation to provide SFC with Vizio OS’s source code, even if SFC were considered a third-party beneficiary of GPLv2 LGPLv2.
> Heh, good luck with that one. Furthermore, I don't think that's a precedent that any proprietary software wants set This is gonna be a good one!
Yea, I'm sure Vizio and every other company that licenses software would love a decision that a license is not a contract and thus only a right to use the software without any obligations that would come from it also being a contract.
Re: Vizio's Arguments (Score:3)
While it depends on the precise details of how Vizio architected their system, I wouldn't expect that they'd need to provide what is likely to amount to application source code just because the device runs Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
> authors of the software in question (Linux kernel, BusyBox, a handful of GNU utilities) should get involved to squash that argument.
There's plenty of [1]history with BusyBox [wikipedia.org] in these squabbles. And between even further between the [2]SFC/SLFC [slashdot.org]. Been a little bit since Bruce Perens has commented around here though, but I think [3]his blog post from years back [archive.org] is still pretty interesting.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BusyBox#GPLv2/GPLv3_controversies
[2] https://news.slashdot.org/story/17/11/04/0236253/software-freedom-law-center-launches-trademark-war-against-software-freedom-conservancy
[3] https://web.archive.org/web/20091220044135/http://perens.com/blog/2009/12/15/23/
Pretty easy choice (Score:1)
If they don't want to be found liable for violating the license, Vizio does have another option: they can be guilty of copyright infringement instead.
Admitting they intended to Infringe the copyright, would explain how it's possible that they never agreed to GPL. ;-)
Probably best to just comply with the contract they earlier agreed to. Keeping one's word is generally a good idea, and this situation isn't exceptional.
Companies view free as different (Score:2)
Companies will always want to use GPL software because it is free in as we don't pay for it but want to protect their implementation. I hope this lawsuit results in a win for the SFC and thus set a precedent, rather than a settlement. A win would strengthen enforcement, and likely cause a lot of concern amongst companies using GPL'd software. Unfortuantely, IMHO, there are enough gray areas that even if SFC wins the resultant compliant code release will not easy enable modifying and using teh software on
The real killer for Visio (Score:3)
and the rest is configuring the system to strip out ads.
And if you're watching something on youtube, and the ads come at the worst possible moment...
Re: (Score:1)
"And if you're watching something on youtube, and the ads come at the worst possible moment..." - Why is this still a thing with people?? Install Firefox, add the uBlock Origin extension, never see another ad on Youtube. For even greater justice install the Youtube Sponsor Block extension. No ads, no sponsors. Set up your TV to simply be a monitor and use a cheap little computer as an HTPC. I have not seen ads on the Internet in well over 15 years now, probably even longer.
Re:The real killer for Visio (Score:4, Insightful)
This sounds great, how do I do that on Google TV/Tizen/Roku/etc? I'm not sure your solution goes further than a desktop OS....
Re: (Score:1)
You didn't read the whole post: "Set up your TV to simply be a monitor and use a cheap little computer as an HTPC".
Seriously who bothers with the crapware built into a tv anyway? Just use it as a dumb screen and attach other devices to it. The devices are cheap and much easier to replace than a tv. I have a tv from more than 10 years ago which i still use in one room, with a newer box connected to it. The built in crapware on the tv is now totally useless as it stopped being supported years ago.
I doubt most home users have heard of HTPC (Score:2)
> Seriously who bothers with the crapware built into a tv anyway? Just use it as a dumb screen and attach other devices to it.
First, the user needs to know that "a cheap little computer" exists and can be connected to a TV. Walmart and Best Buy haven't been doing a good job of marketing these to the public. Second, the user needs the spare time to learn to administer yet another computer. Third, the user needs to be satisfied with some services limiting streams to 480p because a desktop computer running Linux and Firefox has a low "integrity level" in Widevine.
Re: (Score:2)
> You didn't read the whole post: "Set up your TV to simply be a monitor and use a cheap little computer as an HTPC".
No we did read it. We just ignored it for the rubbish suggestion it is. I know it will shock many here on Slashdot but generally people don't want to live lives with an overly complex array of custom intermingled gadgets in the living room. They want to push a button on a remote that auto plays Netflix from the last episode watched, and real complex techheads in the public will push a second button to turn on a soundbar connected via a single cable to the TV.
People don't even have AVRs and 7.1 surround soun
Should switch to Windows (Score:2)
Then they don't have to worry.
Exactly which parts are we talking about? (Score:4, Informative)
If they make OS changes, they need to release the code to those because the OS is GPL'd.
If the TV includes an application that they wrote without using GPL'd code, then they don't need to release the code because it's not a derivative of anything GPL'd.
I'd wager a few bucks that the code that decides when to show ads is part of an application, not part of the OS, so the part about how this case could "allow users to make meaningful changes to how their TVs work, including limiting ads or deactivating automatic content recognition" smells like wishful thinking and/or just bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
This was my first thought. This also gives all the manufacturers a heads up to quickly change things to putting it all in separate apps if they aren't now so that if the case does prevail and move on, they can throw their hands up and say "we're not doing anything wrong!"
Re: (Score:2)
> I'd wager a few bucks that the code that decides when to show ads is part of an application, not part of the OS,
Probably true. But with the OS source, I'm guessing that the tweaks will involve writing new applications from the ground up. Or creating plug-ins for something like VLC that can grab the program stream from the tuner and paint it on the screen. Most of the broadcast stuff is based on open standards anyway.
The big value added for advertisers is viewer market region and identity customization of ads. That will go away with most foreseeable home brew viewer apps. So ads will have to be stitched in to the pro
Why all the source code? (Score:1)
I understand they need to release the source code for the GPLv2/LGPL components they have used/modified but what's the argument for releasing all of their source code? The whole point of LGPL is that you can link against it without having to open up your application source code. Surely the actual interesting part of Vizio OS itself is just a proprietary application or set of proprietary applications running on the system? Or is there an argument they have linked to GPL components in the application?
Weaponization of lockouts (Score:3)
TV's are just the starting point. Many cars, especially EV's need help from legislation like this. Most are linux based but there are lockouts that are weaponized against the owners of the vehicles. The argument should start and end with the security and privacy component. An owner of a thing should not be forced to allow the manufacturer access to that thing unless there is a documented short term need such as updates or repairs. Industry standard zero trust configs should be guaranteed as a right of ownership. For EV's these things are connected to the grid for God's sake. Even just a portion of any given manufacturers vehicles are connected to the grid at any given time. Most will be done charging but still connected. If a manufacturers systems are compromised either through hacking or even a single rogue employee, then something as simple as a command to start charging would melt the grid. This is before you even bring in any privacy component. This is before you bring in any right to repair component. But both of those stack on top. People should be infuriated. Reviewers should be rating companies on this but they don't because they cant get their hands on the next car to review if they are too rough on the automakers. At some point people have to learn and fight back.
Re: (Score:2)
DVRs were the starting point. The namesake for what you're talking about, [1]tivoization [wikipedia.org], is Tivo, the DVR that existed way back when TV was still analog and being displayed on CRTs.
It's why the GPLv3 was made: to add clauses to forbid tivoization. Instead, a lot of the open source community moved in the opposite direction, moving to licenses that allowed companies even more freedom to lock up their code.
> At some point people have to learn and fight back.
Good luck. This is not a new fight by any means. You could argue that the FSF has been fighting it for almo
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization
Re: (Score:2)
> Imagine if Vizio were to become the first pro-consumer TV.
The MPA member movie studios would probably withdraw their respective streaming services from Vizio's platform on grounds that a user-modifiable free operating system fails to satisfy the "compliance and robustness" rules of whatever digital restrictions management protocol they use.
Linux is Open Source (Score:2)
... but not everything that runs on top of Linux is itself open source.
If they distributed modified GPL'd components then they must release the modified code. If they wrote an application that runs on top of the GPL'd components, then they are under no obligation to release the code to their application(s).
Win the battle, lose the war (Score:2, Insightful)
Companies that haven't done so already will stop making new products that are impacted by viral licenses.
Re:Win the battle, lose the war (Score:5, Insightful)
And do what? Write their own OS along with every integration needed?
More likely they'll separate the OS and the TV code so they can ship the open source OS along with their closed source software
Re: (Score:3)
> More likely they'll separate the OS and the TV code so they can ship the open source OS along with their closed source software
I'd be amazed if this wasn't already the case. We've already been through this with Tivo, it was one of the reasons behind the creation of the GPLv3. Tivo based their DVRs on Linux, and provided downloads of the Linux code. But their DVRs used hardware DRM to ensure that only code signed by Tivo would run, making it so that even with the open source code, you couldn't run changes on the hardware.
From what I can tell, Vizio is doing the same thing, but isn't providing downloads to the kernel code they're usi
Re: (Score:2)
They could just use an OS with a BSD license (or one fundamentally similar to it) instead. It's what Apple does for their products. OS X (and its derivatives) was built on FreeBSD. Another company could make the OS in this way and license it for a very low cost to the device manufacturers and make their money on volume. As long as that cost is less than whatever the expected value of bundling all the usual shit makes the device manufacturer less the cost of having an internal team do the same thing, it's in
Re: (Score:2)
> And do what? Write their own OS along with every integration needed?
No, they'll buy licenses for QNX or VxWorks. Or switch to BSD. A lot of car stereos run on QNX/Qt.
Re: (Score:2)
The kernel isn't really worth keeping closed source.
They have to weigh the logistical burden of sharing source code they don't really care much about versus the very large and real technical burden of changing their technology stack.
Re:Win the battle, lose the war (Score:5, Informative)
So what. If developers release software under liberal licenses that allow proprietary use, that's on them. Vizio is welcome to use such code in a proprietary manner. How is that losing the war? Besides that, what war are you talking about?
When Vizio chose to use GPL'd software, they must abide by the terms or remove it. It was their choice to use that code.
Also stop calling them viral licenses. The GPL doesn't infect anything. This is a lie, plain and simple. If you use any copyrighted code you must do so under the terms of the license whatever that is. If you fail to abide by the license you have three choices: 1. abide by the license terms and release your changes, 2. remove the code entirely, or 3. negotiate licensing terms that fit your needs. Corporations who fail to abide the license terms deserve what they get.
Re: (Score:2)
> Also stop calling them viral licenses. The GPL doesn't infect anything. This is a lie, plain and simple. If you use any copyrighted code you must do so under the terms of the license whatever that is. If you fail to abide by the license you have three choices: 1. abide by the license terms and release your changes, 2. remove the code entirely, or 3. negotiate licensing terms that fit your needs. Corporations who fail to abide the license terms deserve what they get.
People use that term for licenses that meet a specific criterion — that using code under the license compels authoring other code under that license.
GPL and AGPL are viral, because when you use code under that license in larger projects, unless all integration occurs through a non-code interface (e.g. pipes), the larger project must be licensed under GPL or AGPL. In effect, code written under those licenses infects other code that you might want to link with them.
And it's even a problem in the open s
Re: (Score:2)
> Actually most of them are choosing equally viral licenses. If you get some proprietary software under a proprietary license and then make a derived work, your resulting license will be proprietary too.
If you get proprietary software and then make a derivative work, you have violated copyright. It isn't just proprietary. It can't legally exist.