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
Sponsors
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
Sponsors
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 / Blog
One More Small Step Toward The Right to Software Repair
byBradley M. Kühn
on December 28, 2021
Our Motion to Remand in Vizio Lawsuit Shows How the Law Brings Software Freedom to All Users
Yesterday afternoon, we filed a Motion for Remand in our
lawsuit against Vizio for their flagrant GPL & LGPL violations, alleged
with great detail in our complaint in California state
court. Vizio's response to that complaint was to
“remove” the case to federal
court. Vizio argues that the lawsuit can only be brought by a copyright
holder as a copyright infringement lawsuit in federal court. In response, we
have asked the federal court to return (“remand”) the case to
state court.
While Vizio's original request to
“remove” the case from state court to federal court is, in
the general sense, a standard litigation tactic and our response is a
relatively standard response (on which we expect to prevail), the
implications of these early procedural maneuvers deserve special attention
for those of you that care deeply about copyleft as a strategy to achieve
software freedom and rights. If you seek a deeper understanding of these
essential issues in copyleft policy, we encourage you to
first read our motion to remand, and then read this
article as supplemental strategic context for that filing.
Many of
our longstanding
Sustainers will recall that we previously have enforced the GPL for
BusyBox in federal court. As part of that large lawsuit against 14
defendants, we learned how the process of copyright-only GPL enforcement
works in US federal court. We still believe that federal litigation
brought by copyright holders is an essential component of copyleft
enforcement.
But many lawyers have advised us that contract law is a useful parallel avenue. This approach has the advantage of
empowering users of the software who are not necessarily copyright holders. The mantra of “the GPL is not a contract” is a
mistruth that has been so often repeated that it became widely accepted and typically unchallenged. (We expect you'll hear this theory repeated even more loudly now
that the our Vizio lawsuit brought the question to the forefront in a
federal court case.) Yet, prominent legal experts outside of FOSS social circles have long scoffed at the assertion.
Indeed, case law in the USA has held the opposite. In multiple cases,
courts have been convinced, specifically, that the GPL operates as both a contract and a copyright license.
The law appears clear on this, and this is among the reasons why we believe
our motion to remand will succeed. In short, we'll say it plainly here and now for
everyone: the GPL operates both as a copyright license and as a contract;
litigation can proceed under either of those legal theories. Our
motion to remand in the Vizio case explains the legal
details as to why that's true.
While this seems a minor matter of legal detail, it stems from the longstanding and fundamental principles
of copyleft itself. Specifically, the point of copyleft was not to further empower
copyright holders. As early as 2001,
I and other copyleft proponents already argued publicly that copyleft was
a method for software authors to unilaterally disarm the inappropriate power held by copyright holders when they created software. Like the Constitutional Bill of Rights in the USA (which exercised government power by guaranteeing each citizen's rights), the GPL allows software authors to exercise their power in choosing a license to grant rights to all software users. Those
users deserve the right to seek redress when companies impugn their rights.
In short, the GPL was designed as a tool for software authors to exercise their
default power of licensing control to benefit the general public (instead of only themselves).
Accordingly, this legal diversification of claims is not only a
tactical matter. It's not an esoteric debate; it drives to the very heart of copyleft's policy goals.
Our Vizio case is landmark GPL litigation because, in addition to seeking the source code for our immediate use to create alternative firmwares, the lawsuit
trailblazes a path for consumers to assert their software right to
repair. If the entire case is ultimately successful, we will have shown
that individual users who purchase a device and wish to repair the
copylefted software in it have a fundamental legal right to take action on their own to
seek redress from the court.
Further, our claim in this lawsuit asks for what lawyers call specific
performance. CCS for a specific product has unique value that cannot be replaced by awarding monetary damages instead. Once ordered to specifically perform, the vendor has no choice but to produce
the CCS for all copylefted software. Our lawsuit focuses on this remedy under contract law because it is the most relevant to the policy aims of the GPL. In short, money is no substitute for CCS, and we plan to explain why to the Court as the case continues.
Nevertheless, copyright litigation under GPL also remains an important tool, and we expect that we'll work with our lawyers to bring copyright claims again
in the future — when that's the best tool to do the job that needs to be done. However, we believe a consumer-led enforcement
strategy (which doesn't require holding copyrights) empowers users in a fundamental way and is consistent with GPL's original policy goals. As it stands today, we receive regular reports from individuals
who request source code for GPL'd devices, only to have companies ignore
them — unless and until a copyright holder assists them. We provide that
assistance when we can, but realistically we can't commit to provide such assistance for every copyleft violation in the world. Companies (at
their peril) rely on the false notion that they need only fear a
copyright holders' accusation of copyleft non-compliance. We seek to change these anti-patterns — starting with our lawsuit against Vizio.
The Vizio lawsuit may take years to complete, but we are
confident that we'll win this first skirmish. We believe the remedy we seek — that Vizio acknowledge
their obligations under relevant copyleft licenses and release the CCS — is reasonable and achievable. While we pursue that remedy,
we know that not everyone
will have the time or inclination to study every move in this lawsuit. If
you don't have the time to do that, we thank you now for the trust you've
shown by donating to our organization to support this work. We assure you
that we take the public trust of our charitable mission very seriously and
will focus this work, including our litigation, to benefit the general
public. However, if you have the time and inclination, we again commit
ourselves to transparency and updates like this one to explain to you the
nuances and important fundamental issues of strategy that inform our every
decision in our copyleft enforcement work. We believe in the power of
copyleft to bring consumers a meaningful right to software repair, and we believe in
upholding that right under the full scrutiny of that same public.
We thank all of you so much for your support of our work, and the many
encouraging emails that so many of you have sent us about this Vizio
lawsuit. While I always hate to ask for money, I'd be remiss if I didn't
note that your donations helped us get to this point, and I ask that you
take a moment to become a sustainer during our match donation period, which ends soon.
[permalink]
Please email any comments on this entry to
info@sfconservancy.org.
Other Conservancy Blog entries…
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.
