Conservancy Blog

Get the latest update on our Vizio court case

●News

Press Releases

Press

Blog

Vizio Lawsuit in the News

Our Issues in the News

●About

Sustainers

Board of Directors

Staff

Evaluation Committee

Outside Counsel, et alia

Transparency

Contact

●Our Work

Copyleft Compliance

We defend and uphold the rights of software users and consumers under copyleft licenses.

Impact Litigation

We defend the legal rights of software users. Learn the details, status, and stakes of our court cases.

Give Up GitHub

We urge FOSS Developers to Give Up GitHub! Learn why.

Outreachy

We offer internships for anyone who faces underrepresentation, systemic bias, or discrimination in the tech industry.

FOSSY

Our annual community-oriented conference focused on the creation and impact of free and open source software. ●Tools

Member Projects

We provide non-profit infrastructure and services to our members creating Free/Libre and Open Source Software.

Use The Source

Our tool for evaluating the source code candidates companies must provide for GPLed software.

OpenWrt One

We designed and built the first ever wireless Internet router designed with software freedom and right to repair in mind. ●Learn

The Corresponding Source

A bi-weekly oggcast about legal, policy, and many other issues in the Free, Libre, and Open Source Software (FLOSS) world.

Glossary of Terms

A list of terms you might be unfamiliar with but occur frequently in our work.

FAQ About the Vizio Lawsuit

Your most frequently asked questions about the Vizio lawsuit, answered in one place. ● Donate

●News

Press Releases

Press

Blog

Vizio Lawsuit in the News

Our Issues in the News

●About

Sustainers

Board of Directors

Staff

Evaluation Committee

Outside Counsel, et alia

Transparency

Contact

●Our Work

Copyleft Compliance

We defend and uphold the rights of software users and consumers under copyleft licenses.

Impact Litigation

We defend the legal rights of software users. Learn the details, status, and stakes of our court cases.

Give Up GitHub

We urge FOSS Developers to Give Up GitHub! Learn why.

Outreachy

We offer internships for anyone who faces underrepresentation, systemic bias, or discrimination in the tech industry.

FOSSY

Our annual community-oriented conference focused on the creation and impact of free and open source software. ●Tools

Member Projects

We provide non-profit infrastructure and services to our members creating Free/Libre and Open Source Software.

Use The Source

Our tool for evaluating the source code candidates companies must provide for GPLed software.

OpenWrt One

We designed and built the first ever wireless Internet router designed with software freedom and right to repair in mind. ●Learn

The Corresponding Source

A bi-weekly oggcast about legal, policy, and many other issues in the Free, Libre, and Open Source Software (FLOSS) world.

Glossary of Terms

A list of terms you might be unfamiliar with but occur frequently in our work.

FAQ About the Vizio Lawsuit

Your most frequently asked questions about the Vizio lawsuit, answered in one place. ●Donate Thanks to so many donors, we met our largest match donation ever of $211,939. Two generous anonymous donors have provided another $40,012ofadditional matching funds. Give now to help us reach this stretch goal! For only 4 more days, the next $13,079offinancial support we receive will be matched! $26,933 matched! $13,079 to go! $211,927 fully matched! Home / News

Displaying posts tagged GPL

Some Unfortunate Delays in our Struggle for Copyleft Justice

byBradley M. Kühn on January 26, 2026 We at Software Freedom Conservancy are disappointed at some surprising news. Two weeks ago (THU 2026-01-08), we had our original pretrial motions hearing scheduled in our historic impact litigation against Vizio. Just about an hour before the hearing's start-time, Judge Sandy Leal issued a minute order that rescheduled the hearing and (effectively) removed the trial (which was set to start on Monday 12 January 2025) from her calendar. The rescheduled hearing date was Monday 2026-01-26 at 09:00. At 08:15 that morning, our attorneys were contacted from the Court Clerk that the hearing was again postponed.. We have been in this litigation against Vizio since October 2021. Vizio violated both the General Public License (GPL) and Lesser GPL Agreements. Vizio's “Smart” TV products include more than a dozen packages under these copyleft licenses, yet Vizio has continually failed to comply with these agreements in various ways — most notably (and including but not limited to) by (a) not providing complete, corresponding source code, (b) not providing “the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable[s]”, and (c) not providing object code necessary for relinking the LGPLv2.1'd works. We were looking forward to our days in Court that week to show the world all the details of Vizio's non-compliance, and to ask the Court to acknowledge (among other things) our right as a third-party beneficiary under the GPL Agreements to receive all the materials that those Agreements require Vizio to give to all consumers who purchase their devices. These devices, BTW, are called “Smart” TVs because what's inside is actually a small (but powerful) computer attached to the giant video display — driven and controlled largely by copylefted FOSS. Notwithstanding our frustration, our trial was delayed for good reason. Another case — even older than ours — needed more time for their jury trial (and thus had priority over ours). While some criticize the USA for being “too litigious”, we at SFC believe firmly that the civil Courts are the best place where ordinary citizens and small, scrappy non-profit charities like SFC can seek justice when our rights are violated. We also know that there is more injustice in our country these days than anyone would like, and this delay occurred because there are other folks out there seeking justice on other important issues and rights, too. We understand that we've been waiting for a long time in a very long queue in the California Courts, and while we (like everyone) get frustrated when the line is taking much longer than expected, we also appreciate that Judge Leal is carefully managing her docket to grant all parties an impartial opportunity for justice. Attorneys for both SFC and Vizio are now negotiating with the Court for rescheduling. We hope the pretrial hearing will be scheduled fairly soon. We will update here and on the Fediverse as we know more. We'll spend the next few weeks posting the various recent motions and filings in the case, and publishing some retrospective summaries of the last four and a half years of the case for you all to read. Be sure subscribe to our feed in your RSS readers/aggregators and follow us on the Fediverse (via Mastodon or your preferred ActivityPub software). to receive updates! [permalink] Tags: conservancy, GPL, law

OpenWrt One: manufacturing software freedom

byDenver Gingerich on December 3, 2024 Software cannot run without hardware. To have software freedom, we need hardware to run our software. Sadly, the vast majority of hardware is not built with software freedom in mind. Too often, we are beholden to the big hardware companies that sell us our laptops, phones, routers, TVs and other devices. Few manufacturers today build devices with user modifiability and longevity in mind. And it's getting worse. Hardware is becoming more and more locked down, making the need for devices that will work in our interests more and more acute. Software Freedom Conservancy announced on Friday, in conjuction with our OpenWrt member project, that the first router designed from the ground up by the OpenWrt community is now shipping. OpenWrt developers and SFC staff have been coordinating over the past year to design and produce a hardware device that showcases the best of what OpenWrt has to offer. From the upstream-first approach, to the up-front source code availability, no stone was left unturned in ensuring the device would give people flexibility and control over the software (and hardware) that runs their network. SFC works toward GPL compliance across the industry, so the devices running Linux out there (which now include toasters, dishwashers, fridges, and dryers, as well as laptops, phones, routers, and TVs) all comply with the copyleft terms that give you the right to modify and reinstall changes onto your device. GPL enforcement is one way we tackle this problem, but we constantly seek other approaches. In the case of OpenWrt, we have yet another example that shows the device manufacturers that haven't yet complied with the GPL (and given users the rights they are owed) how to do it right — to give people what they want and what the GPL requires. We are very excited to watch the interesting applications you find for your OpenWrt One. We're amazed and impressed to learn some people are already running Doom and other software that just won't run on a router that you buy from one of the big name router brands. :) We think it's important for people to have the freedom to make their software work for them, to explore, and enjoy their software experience. The GPL and other copyleft licenses exist to make this possible. The OpenWrt One is admittedly not perfect. It's sadly a prime example of hardware from recent eras that relies on a few binary component firmwares (in this case, for small parts of the wifi, 2.5 GbE port, and RAM calibration). It is difficult to construct modern hardware without a few of these binary blobs. While this reality is a travesty, we are excited that nearly all the source code for the software on the OpenWrt One is freely licensed. This ensures the maximum possible ability to repair and improve the device. We hope the device will last, and someday, since the binary parts are electronically upgradable, future users can replace the binary component firmwares as FOSS replacements become available. The design and distribution of the OpenWrt One shows that it is not only possible to distribute a device containing both copylefted and non-FOSS code, but that it is also cost-effective and straight-forward to comply with the relevant licenses, and allow users to modify and reinstall the device from source. SFC wants to build this future of freedom for all your electronics (especially those running Linux and other GPL'd software). I work every day through private channels (and the courts, when needed) to get companies to respect your rights under the GPL. I'm ecstatic that we're now creating new hardware to show the world what is possible when we put software rights first! We're excited for everyone to join us on this journey, and encourage you to read our OpenWrt One launch announcement for more details on this first step. Wejust started our annual fundraiser and we'd be thrilled if you could support us by becoming a sustainer. For a limited time, until January 15 (or $204,887 of donations), all donations will be matched, so renew or become a Sustainer today! Thanks for helping us bring software freedom (and hardware respecting it) to everyone! [permalink] Tags: GPL

Excitement for GPL enforcement at Linux Plumbers

byDenver Gingerich on October 3, 2024 We were excited and very happy to participate in Linux Plumbers Conference this year, which happened last month (Sep 18-20) in Vienna. As one of the premiere programs using a software right to repair license (GPLv2), Linux is crucial for the future of software freedom in our devices, from those we use to develop and write new code, to the phones many of us carry with us, to the many appliances and even cars that bring conveniences to our lives. And so we were delighted to discuss Linux and its role in our connected future with Linux kernel developers and other enthusiasts who attended this technical conference. We hosted a BoF, Let's talk about GPL and LGPL enforcement!, which brought dozens of developers together to discuss the hard questions of how we can ensure that Linux's license is enforced so people can get the code they're entitled to, and the current state of GPL and LGPL enforcement across the board. After some discussion of how often companies use software under the GPL and LGPL without honoring the license terms (it's unfortunately very very common), we fielded some questions about source candidates that people had received. The first example that a participant provided as a positive example of a company meeting its obligations turned out to actually be from a company that SFC had sued in the past, showing that SFC's prior enforcement efforts were helping to change behavior, causing companies to provide GPL/LGPL source code when they hadn't before. The discussion moved on to how we can bring the next generation of developers into the Linux community, so they can keep improving the Linux kernel in the coming decades. It was noted that a lot of new computer users aren't getting the same computing environment that most Linux developers grew up with. In particular, most Linux developers today started computing with desktop or laptop computers that gave them a wide range of software options, and easy ways to switch operating systems and other key software. However, today most new computer users are getting less capable devices, not because they are less powerful, but because the devices don't have the same malleability and accessibility as they did two decades ago, which is due in part to GPL violations where the user is prevented from reinstalling modified Linux or other software onto their device. This really struck me, as I had many conversations in the "hallway track" where I asked people how they got into FOSS, and the responses were invariably a version of "to do more interesting things with my computer". It was clear that the computing devices of the 90s and early 2000s really promoted this developer mindset, and that we would have to keep the momentum going to ensure that new developers would have the same opportunities. This leaves us with a mission to make sure that as computing platforms change, we retain the freedoms that enabled the current generation of technology to flourish. While GPL enforcement isn't the only factor in ensuring people can access developer tools and make meaningful changes to their devices, it is certainly an important piece of the puzzle, given everything we heard at Plumbers this year. With large percentages of Linux devices still distributed without giving users the freedoms that Linux's license is designed to give them, GPL enforcement is immensely important, as our discussions at Plumbers and elsewhere remind us. The feedback from the BoF was overwhelmingly positive, and we were so happy to be able to take questions, share information, connect with longtime contributors and meet newcomers with such a keen interest in copyleft and enforcement. As always, we invite feedback about this work. You can email us anytime at compliance@sfconservancy.org, and we'll be scheduling some synchronous sessions later in the year. In the meantime, we are proud to continue the work to ensure that everyone can repair and modify the software on their Linux devices, and everything else using software right-to-repair licenses, for current and future generations of software users and developers. [permalink] Tags: GPL, licensing

Prioritizing software right to repair: engaging corporate response teams

byDenver Gingerich on February 3, 2024 Across organizations who develop and deploy software, there are a wide range of time-sensitive concerns that arise. Perhaps the most diligent team that responds to such time-sensitive concerns is the cybersecurity team. It is crucial for them to quickly understand the security concern, patch it without introducing any regressions, and deploy it. In extreme cases this is all done within a few hours — a monumental task crammed into less time than a dinner party (and often replacing such a social event at the last minute; these teams are truly dedicated). Many other teams exist across organizations for different levels of risk and concern. In our experience, on average among many companies, the team that receives among the lowest priorities is the team that responds to concerns about a company's copyleft compliance. Now we can think of some reasons for this: the team is often not connected to the team that collated the software containing copylefted code, or that latter team was not given proper instruction for how to comply with the licenses (and/or does not read the licenses themselves). So the team responding when someone notes a copyleft compliance deficiency is ill-equipped to handle it, and is often stonewalled by developer teams when they ask them for help, so the requests for correct source code under copyleft licenses usually languish. With this in mind, we at SFC are helping prioritize the copyleft compliance concerns an organization may face due to some of the above. To reflect the importance of teams responding to copyleft compliance concerns, we recommend that companies create a team that we are calling a "Copyleft Compliance Incident Response Team" (CCIRT). This will help convey to management the importance of properly staffing the team, but also how it must be taken seriously by other teams that the CCIRT relies on to respond to incidents. Where companies employ Compliance Officers, they will likely be obvious leaders for this team. Now some companies may not need a CCIRT. Unlike security vulnerabilities, failing to comply with copyleft licenses is entirely preventable. If you know your company already has policies and procedures that yield compliant results (of the same form as compliant source candidates that we praise in the comments on Use The Source), then there is no need for a CCIRT. However, our experience shows that most companies do not have such policies and procedures, in which case a CCIRT is necessary until such policies and procedures can reliably produce compliant source candidates from the start. We recently launched Use The Source (alluded to above), which helps device owners and companies see whether source code candidates (the most important part of copyleft compliance) are giving users their software right to repair, i.e. whether they comply with the copyleft licenses they use. We realize companies may be concerned about SFC publishing their source candidates before they have had a chance to double-check them for compliance, due to some of the issues with policies and procedures mentioned above. As a result, we are giving companies the opportunity to be notified before we post a source candidate of theirs, so that they can take up to 7 days to update the candidate with any fixes they feel may be necessary before we post it. And the sooner a company contacts us, the better, as we are offering up to 37 days from the launch of Use The Source before we publish candidates we receive. See our CCIRT notification timeline for details. For historical purposes, the additional grace period that we provided at launch time is detailed here. We hope that this new terminology will help organizations prioritize copyleft compliance appropriately, and that everyone can benefit from the shared discussions of source candidates and their compliance with copyleft licenses. We look forward to working with companies and device owners to promote exceptional examples of software right to repair (through our comments on Use The Source) as we find them. [permalink] Tags: GPL, security, licensing, software freedom for everyone Next page (older) » [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

See all blog posts…

Blog Index by Year

●2026 ●2025 ●2024 ●2023 ●2022 ●2021 ●2020 ●2019 ●2018 ●2017 ●2016 ●2015 ●2014 ●2013 ●2012 ●2011 ●2010

Blogs by Tag

●conservancy ●GPL ●supporter ●licensing ●conferences ●law ●events ●software freedom for everyone ●Member Projects ●Outreachy ●FOSS Sustainability ●diversity ●resources ●Copyleft Conf ●ContractPatch ●Filings ●Godot ●Reproducible Builds ●Year In Review 2016 ●fundraiser ●CLA ●Wine ●Year In Review 2015 ●Kallithea ●QEMU ●Selenium ●Google Summer of Code ●Homebrew ●inkscape ●patent ●security ●Clojars ●Git ●Hackfests ●Racket ●cyborg ●phpMyAdmin ●pypy ●volunteer ●Accounting ●LibreHealth ●Shotwell ●inclusion ●jQuery ●microblocks ●sourceware

Blogs by Author

●Vladimir Bejdo ●Kate Chapman ●Pamela Chestek ●Denver Gingerich ●Bradley M. Kühn and Denver Gingerich ●Will Hawkins ●Fred Jennings ●Deb and Karen ●Jeff King ●Bradley M. Kühn ●Conservancy + Bro LT ●Christine Lemmer-Webber ●Deb Nicholson ●Sourceware PLC ●Rick Sanders ●Bradley M. Kühn and Karen M. Sandler ●Karen Sandler ●Tony Sebro ●Sage A. Sharp ●Brett Smith ●Conservancy's Staff ●Daniel Takamori ●Outreachy Team ●Marina Zhurakhinskaya ●Molly deBlanc ●Main Page ●Contact ●Sponsors ●RSS Feed ● Software Freedom Conservancy is a 501(c)(3) non-profit charity. Privacy Policy last updated 22 December 2020. This page and its contents are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International License.