December 24, 2025

On 23 December 2025, Judge Leal granted a motion brought by Vizio that sought a ruling on a position that SFC has not actually taken. Vizio asked the court to rule on something that no one believes the GPLv2 requires.

Specifically, Vizio said in their motion for summary adjudication:

Defendant VIZIO, Inc. [moves] this Court for summary adjudication [re] whether … GPLv2 … and … LGPLv2.1 … require the licensee [under the GPL Agreements] to provide information necessary to install modified versions of the licensed software back onto the Smart TVs with which the software was originally distributed while ensuring the TVs continue to function properly. … VIZIO moves on the grounds that the plain language … compels the conclusion that neither license imposes a duty on licensees to provide all information necessary to permit reinstallation of modified software back on the same device such that the device continues to function properly.

SFC has never held the position, nor do we today hold the position, that any version of the GPL (even including GPLv3!) require “that the device continues to function properly” after a user installs their modified version of the copyleft components.

Indeed, as was seen with TiVo, it is completely sufficient to provide the user a mechanism to install a new firmware that removes not only all proprietary components (such as Vizio’s (or TiVo’s) TV application), but also other material that is a “independent and separate work” from the copylefted software. (This may include, for example, removing keys used to decode encrypted video content with the underlying hardware.) The GPL Agreements promise the users’ right to a functioning Linux-based system with any other copylefted components.

Unfortunately, Vizio’s motion is likely to confuse the public. No reasonable consumer or copyleft activist has ever asked for this, nor expects it. GPLv3 itself even allows (under certain conditions) for the OEM vendor to cause the accompanying user-space proprietary software to cease to function. We frankly don’t know where Vizio got the language for their motion.

For years, we have asked Vizio to for the complete, corresponding source code for all GPL’d and LGPL’d components on their devices so we can keep these devices out of landfills, repurpose them for new applications, and otherwise exercise our software right to repair as consumers. We (and all consumers) have expected to happen with every piece of hardware that we all have purchased since the inception of copylefted operating systems. Vizio’s position here is even what we would expect with a laptop: if we buy a Microsoft Windows laptop and install a Linux-based system, we wouldn’t expect the Microsoft Word application to necessarily continue working (Microsoft’s software might work with Wine, but the laptop vendor wouldn’t guarantee that.) Similarly, we don’t expect Vizio’s proprietary TV software to function when we exercise our right to software repair.

Litigation is complicated and nuanced decisions by the Court are often exaggerated by third parties with a political and/or policy agenda. We will continue to advocate, in this case and elsewhere, that users and consumers are owed the installation scripts that were used to install the GPLv2’d and LGPLv2.1’d software. We do expect those who favor corporate profit over users’ rights to publicly claim this ruling reaches further and means more than it says.

We still await the judge’s decision on our own motion for summary adjudication. We will continue to provide nuanced and realistic information about our best understanding of this historic case and our future work to come.

We look forward to the Vizio trial where we will argue that our (and the FSF’s) interpretation of the copyleft licenses is correct, accurate, and assures the software right to repair. Join us in Santa Ana next month to watch the truth unfold.