NHacker Next
- new
- past
- show
- ask
- show
- jobs
- submit
login
Well, this being the US, I guess the Judge is looking for more "tips".
https://natlawreview.com/article/it-tip-or-bribe-supreme-cou...
If they don't do that, they are in violation of copyright (since nothing else gives them permission to copy and distribute it).
https://sfconservancy.org/news/2022/may/16/vizio-remand-win/
Not following the license terms have a name, stealing.
Because "modern contract doctrine requires only objective manifestations of assent"
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/meeting_of_the_minds
Courts started doing this because people were playing dumb in court to get out of contracts: "oh I didn't know I was agreeing to that"
So instead, courts started calling bullshit on it, and today judge things as: "look, you went along with the transaction as if you agreed to it and a reasonable person in your situation should have known you were agreeing to it, and that's good enough"
Expecting to benefit from copyright in their own product while ignoring the license of all the products they used, that’s what bothers me, it’s hypocrisy. It’s open sourced software, free like speech, not like beer.
PS: I didn’t vote on any comment.
Sure.
>not following what they agreed.
They may have never agreed.
>that’s what bothers me
You can feel that way, but it's up to the copyright owner to decide if they want to go after such an infringement or if they are okay with it.
Vizio then should stop using GPL licensed software or reach to a license agreement with them BEFORE selling any product that contains GPL license because that’s the license of the code they’re using.
That being said, Vizio has a high paid legal department and is certainly not ignorant of the fact they ship third-party licensed software. They are simply ignoring it.
Courts would say "look you're professional organization well aware of software licensing landscape and you're using it, so you have agreed"
So which is it, and under what circumstances, I would ask you.
That may be true.
> [...] you can't say they violated the GPL.
That does not necessarily follow.
If they used GPL-licensed code in their product, they may be obligated to provide the source code to that product's consumer.
But, more to the point, that’s not the basis for the tentative ruling under discussion, so its irrelevant to whether the decision makes sense.
"Plaintiff argues the subject smart TV included a statement in the “License List” menu that it “may contain executable codes and libraries that are subject to the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL), GNU Lesser General License (LGPL) … and other open source licenses. VIZIO offers to provide applicable source code upon request for a processing fee covering the cost of fulfilling the distribution….” (Motion, p. 8.) Plaintiff contends its representative accepted such offer by requesting the applicable source code in a live chat with a Vizio representative. (p. 9; UMFs 8-11.) "
You never go for the big fish unless you have to. Even with an airtight case, they often can bleed you dry.