GPLv2 affirmation…

I don’t generally post here as people have probably noticed, but here’s a pdf of a recent court ruling, and this turns out to be the easiest way for me to link to a copy of it, since I don’t really maintain any web presence normally and I don’t want to post pdf’s to the kernel mailing lists or anything like that.

And the reason I want to post about it, is that it basically validates my long-held views that the GPLv2 is about making source code available, not controlling the access to the hardware that it runs on.

The court case itself is a mess of two bad parties: Vizio and the SFC. Both of them look horribly bad in court - for different reasons.

Vizio used Linux in their TVs without originally making the source code available, and that was obviously not ok.

And the Software Freedom Conservancy then tries to make the argument that the license forces you to make your installation keys etc available, even though that is not the case, and the reason why the kernel is very much GPLv2 only. The people involved know that very well, but have argued otherwise in court.

End result: both parties have acted badly. But at least Vizio did fix their behavior, even if it apparently took this lawsuit to do so. I can’t say the same about the SFC.

Please, SFC - stop using the kernel for your bogus legal arguments where you try to expand the GPLv2 to be something it isn’t. You just look like a bunch of incompetent a**holes.

The only party that looks competent here is the judge, which in this ruling says

Plaintiff contends the phrases, “machine-readable” and “scripts used to control compilation and installation” support their assertion in response to special interrogatory no. 4 that Defendant should “deliver files such that a person of ordinary skill can compile the source code into a functional executable and install it onto the same device, such that all features of the original program are retained, without undue difficulty.”

The language of the Agreements is unambiguous. It does not impose the duty which is the subject of this motion.

Read as a whole, 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.

In other words, Vizio must ensure the ability of users to copy, change/modify, and distribute the source code, including using the code in other free programs consistent with the Preamble and Terms and Conditions of the Agreements. However, 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. If this was the intent of the Agreements, the Agreements could have been readily modified to state that users must be permitted to modify and reinstall modified software on products which use the program while ensuring the products continue to function. The absence of such language is dispositive and there is no basis to find that such a term was implied here. Therefore, the motion is granted.

IOW, this makes it clear that yes, you have to make source code available, but no, the GPLv2 does not in any way force you to then open up your hardware.

My intention - and the GPLv2 - is clear: the kernel copyright licence covers the software, and does not extend to the hardware it runs on. The same way the kernel copyright license does not extend to user space programs that run on it.

@torvalds thanks for sharing Linus, I appreciate your thoughts on the subject

@torvalds a torvalds post :O 🔥

@torvalds Love you Linus.

@torvalds
Always good to hear from you, Linus.

Though I have to say:

I was hoping for a Christmas greeting — not a reminder that some people still don’t understand GPLv2 in 2025.

TL;DR (IMHO):

The GPLv2 is about making source code available.

It is not about forcing vendors to open their hardware or provide installation keys.

You must be able to:

- copy
- modify
- redistribute the code

including using it elsewhere.

You are not entitled to reinstall modified software on the original device and expect it to keep working.

Open source software is not a backdoor mandate for open hardware.

If that had been the intent, the license would have said so.

It didn’t.

@torvalds Doesn't this mean that you don't get to exercise freedom 1: "The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1)."? If you only can read the software but have no means of putting any changes into practice, then it doesn't seem unreasonable to complain about it from a software freedom perspective. Or am I missing something in the discussion?

@torvalds well, there goes my intent to ally with them — valuable information to share, thanks

@pkal @torvalds The intent of the license must be developed into specific, enforceable terms and conditions. The GPLv2 has none of that, so there’s nothing to enforce. Simple as.

@torvalds which is all well and understood, but also makes it useless because there being no way to reinstall the compiled thing from the sources by ourselves there's no way to guarantee or confirm that the sources delivered are actually the ones being run in the hardware.

@pkal @torvalds From what I understand, Linus’ stance is that software freedom does not get to override what the hardware manufacturer wants their hardware to do. Since you have access to the software as granted by GPLv2, you can make your own hardware to run that software on.
I’m not yet sure how I feel about it, but it is consistent with Linus’ stated opinions.

@torvalds The PDF doesn't open properly (for me at least), alternative link: https://sfconservancy.org/static/docs/2025-12-04-sleal-tentative-rulings.pdf

(scroll down to "2021-01226723 Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. vs. Vizio, Inc.)

Thanks for all your work, Mr. Torvalds.

@xerz @torvalds I agree, which to people like me is exactly the shortcoming of the license, but that wasn't my point: I was hoping to hear what Linus' position is on freedom 1 in general.

@torvalds i wish the distribution of linux kernel source code was adequately enforced, but seems like sfc is the only one doing that (even tho they are incorrectly expanding the gplv2 definition)

https://consumerrights.wiki/w/Entities_refusing_to_distribute_copyleft_licensed_software_under_license_terms#Linux_kernel

https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1puojsr/the_device_that_controls_my_insulin_pump_uses_the/

@torvalds @woody

“IOW, this makes it clear that yes, you have to make source code available, but no, the GPLv2 does not in any way force you to then open up your hardware.”

Exactly. If the GPLv2 requires that, then you can’t use GPLv2 code on (true) ROM. ROM, in the old school sense is undefinable. That’s its purpose. Whether anyone likes it, there are cases where ROM makes sense. If the hardware has to be modifiable, read-only hardware is banned under that license.

@pkal @torvalds Reality is, there is aproximately 1000 ways to legally ignore the license (not only GPL btw), either by not actually sharing the source code or limitting what people can do with it.

On the topic, Linux kernel is a corporate project, so it's obvious which side (actual people vs corpos) kernel folks would choose. Of course, not like adopting GPLv3 would change anything. In fact it would probably make matters worse.

@torvalds I didn't know you used social media at all to be honest. Good information though, thank you for sharing

@torvalds The "continue to function properly" language came from Vizio, though. That's not a claim SFC ever made. That wouldn't even be covered by GPLv3. 🤷
https://sfconservancy.org/news/2025/dec/24/vizio-msa-irrelevant-ruling/

@pkal @torvalds You do have the freedom to modify it and use the modified version. But you are not entitled to run the modified version on the device that the original version came on. You are free to run it on any other device.

@kees @torvalds Yeah, I don't think I've ever seen SFC make the claim that it forces hardware to be opened up. To the contrary, they've argued that people have fundamentally misunderstood what TiVo did and it resulted in the messy GNU v3 license stuff we have today.

@kbruen @torvalds @pkal Programable hardware does what the software tells it to do.

As far as I know, the GPLv2 has loopholes that hardware vendors are exploiting, leaving users with useless code and proprietary software doing nasty things with their devices and the data obtained by interacting with those devices.

Linux has code dependent and independent of the hardware. The dependent code is non-portable and modifications are useless unless you can compile a binary with these modifications and load it in the same device model.

@neal @kees @torvalds You mean this, right?
https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-the-gpl-right-to-install/
Just linking here because it's relevant

@torvalds I agree with your analysis. And I agree with your reasoning when it comes to using GPLv2 as the basis for the kernel license. The SFC wants to be able to do something more than what you intended, but whether what they want is a good idea or not is a separate argument from what the license you chose allows. And I utterly hate lawyers trying to argue that "X implies !X" by increments. That way lies "proving" that the square root of 2 is 2.

@torvalds I've always believed in copyleft over copyright. That said, there are big messes on either side.

FYI Torvalds, I don't trust Vizio for many reasons. Add this to be another reason not to buy their products.

@torvalds FSF wrote the GPL and we don't agree with your interpretation here. And from what I've read, Vizio distributed GNU Bash and GNU GlibC in their TV and this involves LGPL as well. I don't take your post seriously and wouldn't normally reply but you have a megaphone which might distract people.

@iank

Perhaps you should explain why you do not agree.

@torvalds

@lyyn @kees @torvalds Yup, that's the one.

@pkal @torvalds i have to disagree with this perspective.

If the software can run well, sometimes, or not at all, is not the legal responsibility of hardware manufacturers. If that were the case we could sue, say, Nintendo, for not enabling, or facilitating the use of modern Ubuntu from running on the Nintendo 64.

A lot of companies abuse on this logical implication maliciously, but it would make free software downright unappealing for any legal institution to use.

@tragivictoria @pkal @torvalds i do agree Linux is super corporate, but there is nothing unreasonable about the GPL2 and defending what it is and what is not, even if it helps corporations

@torvalds happy holidays! One floss.social post won't have space to discuss all the inaccuracies in your post.

This lawsuit isn't primarily about Linux, which is just 1 of 26 copyleft projects on the TVs; there's both GPLv2 & LGPLv2.1 binaries; Vizio's sources remain non-compliant on various issues. I think maybe you didn't read what we've actually said?

Lots of Linux developers care about this and have different views, so maybe take some time to talk to them or me about it? Could be fun!

@torvalds how can you verify they gave you all the license does say you need from the software they used under the GPLv2 (eg. 3a: "complete corresponding machine-readable source code" or 3b: "complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code")

Some may say they could provide something "functional" but different than what they are running on their hardware...

we just have "trust" them but can't verify.