July 10, 2025
Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) announces that we seek summary adjudication on a key issue in our case against the TV manufacturer, Vizio. This Motion for Summary Adjudication (“MSA”) is an important next step in SFC's ongoing case against Vizio — who has been in violation of the copyleft terms of the General Public License, version 2 (GPLv2) and Lesser General Public License, version 2.1 (LGPLv2.1) for many years. SFC's renewed MSA specifically asks Judge Sandy N. Leal of the Superior Court of California in Orange County to rule — as a matter of law — that SFC has a right as a third-party beneficary under GPLv2.
Third-party beneficiaries (“3PBs”) under contract is a right often sought in situations where an agreement between two other parties specifically intended to give a benefit to someone else. (Below is an example of how 3PB claims typically work1.) SFC filed its claim not as a copyright holder of the programs in question, but as a purchaser of Vizio TVs. When SFC discovered that the complete, corresponding source code (“CCS”) was not provided for these devices, SFC filed the lawsuit to demand the CCS as a 3PB.
GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 are agreements between licensors (e.g., copyright holders) of software and companies that incorporate that software into their devices. SFC, as a third party, bought these Vizio TVs — knowing they were just general-purpose computers with a display attached — hoping to repurpose the devices for deployments such as video chat clients for BBB or for displays at SFC's FOSSY event. To do this, SFC needs the CCS (including the “scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable”). Vizio has failed to provide the CCS. In fact, Vizio continues to argue that SFC doesn't have standing to demand CCS in court as a 3PB. SFC's MSA asks the Court to rule, as a matter of law, that SFC has standing and rights as a 3PB.
SFC previously filed a similar MSA on 1 December 2023. Judge Leal partially denied that motion on 26 March 2024. Vizio's primary objection was an (incorrect) claim that Free Software Foundation (“FSF”) did not agree that the GPLv2 was meant to give rights to third-parties.
SFC has always believed the 3PB right under GPLv2 was self-evident, for
many reasons, including but not limited to the text of GPLv2 itself.
GPLv2§3(b) requires redistributors to to give any third party
an opportunity to receive CCS. Sadly, Vizio convinced Judge Leal in Vizio's
response to the prior motion that FSF's opinion could be a relevant
fact to SFC's 3PB claim, and that it was possible FSF might disagree
with SFC regarding 3PB rights.
Vizio subpoenaed FSF, and — represented by FSF's Executive Director, Zoë Kooyman — FSF gave a deposition in the case and a declaration in support of SFC's new motion. In short, we have shown how foolish Vizio was to assert to the judge that charities who are dedicated to software freedom and the rights of users might possibly disagree on an issue of this importance.
Winning an MSA carries a high burden — Judge Leal must be convinced that no issue of fact remains on the issue. To succeed, the judge must rule as a matter of law that the 3PB right exists in GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1. SFC is confident in our chances for this motion, but, if not successful, SFC is fully prepared and expects to adjudicate this case at trial (starting September 22, 2025).
After many delays in the case, SFC is excited to announce that in late 2025 — regardless of the outcome of this particular motion — we expect to successfully adjudicate this key issue of third-party beneficary rights under the GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1.
1 Here's an example unrelated to software that explains the concept of “third party beneficary” (“3PB”): Imagine if Alice is a carpenter with a niece named Charlotte, who is just about to start college. Bob wants Alice to fix his stairs. Alice wants to help Charlotte pay tutition for school, so she alters her standard contract so Bob has to pay Charlotte the fee that would normally go to Alice. If Bob reneges on this promise, Charlotte would have the right enforce her claim to that fee against Bob, even though Charlotte isn't a party to the carpentry contract between Alice and Bob.