TV Software: Court causes confusion about open source
For years, a foundation has been trying to enforce two open-source licenses against a Walmart subsidiary. There have been successes and a peculiarity.
The penguin is the model for the kernel logo Tux.
(Image: Daniel AJ Sokolov)
Anyone incorporating open source into products must comply with the license terms. This often includes the obligation to supply the source code used on a device or provide it upon request. However, it may never be possible to verify whether the manufacturer actually releases the genuine code. This is because the code does not have to be installable on the device, according to a Californian court.
What this interim decision means for the further court proceedings and, if it becomes legally binding, for practical application later, is unclear. It is even disputed what exactly the parties to the proceedings requested from the court.
What is being disputed
The company Vizio, which sells networked televisions among other products and then makes money from advertising and data about its customers' viewing habits, is the reason for the lawsuit. Vizio supplies its televisions with pre-installed open-source software, including Linux kernels licensed under the GNU General Public License Version 2 (GLPv2) and the GNU Lesser General Public License Version 2.1 (LGLPv2.1). These licenses require that the source code or an offer to provide it be supplied with the product. Vizio, which has been owned by Walmart since 2024, has not complied with this.
The non-profit Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) from New York purchased Vizio color televisions starting in 2018 and then requested the source code. After years of back and forth, Vizio repeatedly sent code that was always incomplete or not compilable. In 2021, the SFC went to court, citing Californian contract law (and not copyright), and achieved two important interim decisions on open source in 2023: According to these, the licenses act as third-party beneficiary contracts. Not only copyright holders can enforce the license by invoking copyright, but also buyers of the device by invoking contract law.
Vizio will have to release at least something
In early December 2025, the responsible judge of the Californian Superior Court in the County of Orange indicated that she was inclined to decide that Vizio must actually provide the SFC with the source codes for a specific television model. Whether Vizio must also supply all its televisions running software under GPL or LGPL to all customers or offer it in a specific form will be clarified in a court hearing. Among other things, the judge sees contradictory statements from the Free Software Foundation, which formulated these licenses.
However, on Festivus 2025, the judge surprised with an interim ruling on Vizio's motion: According to this, the licenses actually oblige Vizio to make the source code available in such a way that it can be easily obtained and modified. This also includes scripts for compilation and installation.
Videos by heise
However, this does not mean that Vizio must allow all users to reinstall the software, modified or not (!), on its networked televisions in a way that preserves all functions of the original program and/or ensures that the televisions continue to function properly. Rather, the obligation to provide the code serves for the further use of the software for other (!) applications.
Linus Torvalds scolds SFC
This prompted Linus Torvalds to publicly scold both parties to the proceedings: Vizio for not making the source code available, and the SFC for demanding the keys required for installation. However, the SFC did not demand that at all.
The SFC defended itself publicly on Christmas Eve: Of course, it never claimed that open-source licenses require that software modified by the user must legally function on the device. (Such a claim would also be absurd, as one does not know how the user has modified the software, note.) Furthermore, other software is also used, which Vizio indisputably does not have to release. In any case, Vizio's motion refers to things that are not being disputed at all.
However, the court's interim ruling also explicitly refers to unmodified software. And indeed, a manufacturer can cryptographically lock down its device so that users cannot install anything on it at all, not even the unmodified original software. This is also not prohibited by GPL and LGPL, indisputably.
Vizio is taking this approach because it makes its money less from selling televisions and more from exploiting the data later harvested with the device. This is typical in the "Smart TV" industry. If buyers could install their own software and forgo monitoring routines, Vizio would lose out on profits.
Hearing postponed
And indeed, the SFC has never demanded that Vizio release the cryptographic keys. However, the original lawsuit speaks of the advantages of the open-source licenses in question and mentions examples where the code is adapted and installed on the device. This is not possible with Vizio's networked televisions without their keys.
And with that, the confusion is complete. In practice, the question arises as to how buyers of a cryptographically blocked device with open-source software can ever find out whether the software code provided by the manufacturer is actually the one used on the device, if they cannot install it, even for testing purposes.
Actually, the proceedings were supposed to finally enter the courtroom phase about two weeks ago, in the fifth year after the lawsuit was filed. However, another case before the same judge, with a jury, is taking longer than planned. This makes the judge unavailable, and the Vizio trial had to be postponed indefinitely. A new date was supposed to be found at a hearing on Monday, but this hearing was also canceled at short notice by the court.
„...the Agreements require Vizio to make the source code available in such a manner that the source code can be readily obtained and modified by Plaintiff or other third parties. While source code is defined to include 'the scripts used to control compilation and installation,' this does not mean that Vizio must allow users to reinstall the software, modified or otherwise, back onto its smart TVs in a manner that preserves all features of the original program and/or ensures the smart TVs continue to function properly. Rather, in the context of the Agreements, the disputed language means that Vizio must provide the source code in a manner that allows the source code to be obtained and revised by Plaintiff or others for use in other applications.
...nothing in the language of the Agreements requires Vizio to allow modified source code to be reinstalled on its devices while ensuring the devices remain operable after the source code is modified...“
The case is called Software Freedom Conservancy v Vizio (Case No. 30-2021-01226723-CU-BC-CJC).
(ds)
