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.

https://www.wordreference.com/iten/vizio

@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/

edit: linus might be mistaken here: https://mastodon.ml/@lyyn/115777554332881107

@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.

@torvalds well, it was worth a shot ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

@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.

@neil hey Neil, im just curious, but is it possible to do something about this? im not sure what legal stuff can be done to stop companies from withholding gpl licensed software, so im curious to hear ur thoughts

happy to talk about this privately, but wanted to mention u here to see what u thought about this

thanks!

@torvalds

I understand and agree with your point on the GPLv2. Certainly I agree that companies should be able to profit.

That said, how much revenue do manufacturers really risk by allowing bootloader unlocks? Most modern Android phones support official unlocking, yet only a tiny fraction of users (enthusiasts) ever do it, the vast majority never touch it.

Tivoization feels like a separate issue best addressed through legislation (e.g., right-to-repair laws) rather than license changes.

@torvalds Also merry christmas and a happy new year

@Logical_Error

There have been a few (but not many) enforcement cases, and Harald Welte ran the gpl-violations.org project for years.

A fair amount of work to enforce FOSS licensing goes on behind the scenes, but litigation is still rare. Litigation can be expensive, slow etc.

@torvalds

“County of Orange”?? 🤭

@torvalds thanks.

@torvalds Thank you. Even if you just post seldomly, it's very much appreciated when you do.

@torvalds A shame really. Users should have the right to modify the software running on their devices.

@pkal this „freedom 1“ can also be interpreted as a „right to repair“ which not only covers freedom but also sustainability. I think GPLv2 comes from an era when there where no IoT appliances and cryptographic boot ROMs so it doesn’t cover these things unfortunately.

@torvalds

@ozamidas @pkal @torvalds viral licenses are completely detached from how laws actually work. In EU GPL got completely dismantled.

@karen @torvalds Since when "fun" is a required part of a discussion on software licences. Judge plainly says that "The Plain Language of the Agreements does not Support the Alleged Duty". Seems not to be a "fun reading" on your part, but clear enough, regardless of what people/community "feels"...

@kbruen @torvalds @pkal
The mistake here is that once they sold it to you, it's no longer their hardware, it IS your own hardware.

@torvalds Does using software under the GPLv2 license allow *anyone* to sue you?

You'd think that if someone breaks the terms of a license, it'd be the owner of the software who has to sue for breaking the license. While this may be delegated, i doubt that the SFC has been delegated such powers.

@ghul I don't buy "If that had been the intent, the license would have said so. It didn’t.", it could also be an oversight at the time of publishing the GPLv2, due to not expecting hardware to exist with software that the user cannot modify. The intention seems pretty clear from all other literature, and just the fact that the GPLv3 was written in response to the issue of such hardware appearing.

It is a different thing to argue that users of the license didn't intend/care about this.

@pkal

I get the argument, but I don’t think it holds up legally or historically.

An “oversight” in GPLv2 would only matter if the text were ambiguous.

The court explicitly found that it isn’t.

In licensing, intent is defined by what was written and agreed to —
not by later expectations or moral preferences.

The fact that GPLv3 was explicitly written to address locked-down hardware is actually strong evidence that GPLv2 does not cover that case.

If the intent had already been there, GPLv3 wouldn’t have needed new language.

It’s fair to argue that some people wanted stronger guarantees later on
- but that’s a different claim than saying GPLv2 already required them.

In short:
evolving goals led to a new license, not a reinterpretation of the old one.

Licenses don’t gain new obligations retroactively - just because the world changed.

- GPLv2 not covering the hardware may have been an oversight
- GPLv3 specifically addressing that indicates the intent to cover that
- Linux continuing to use GPLv2 is not an oversight but an explicit signal that the kernel developers do not intend to make claims over hardware access
@ghul @pkal

Re your third point: Linux could not trivially switch to GPLv3 even if kernel developers intended to do so because everyone involved would need to agree and some authors cannot agree anymore on account of being dead. Their contributions would need to be replaced first.

@osma @ghul @pkal

@wonka @osma @ghul @pkal GPLv2 explicitly allows any later version, and removing that is an additional restriction so dubious. It would take a court to sort that question out however, and for Linux it's not likely to ever happen.

More importantly though was also the social contract. Linux was built and people contributed on the GPLv2 basis. Changing that would have been shutting doors on existing contributors. That point to me was the salient one Linus made when GPL3 arrived

@wonka @osma @ghul I never thought about this: If contributors die, do their heirs have the right to agree that their contributions be re-licensed under GPLv3?

@pkal @wonka @osma @ghul you can always relicense code you own barring restrictive agreements like in contracts. What you can't do is remove the existing GPLv2 version There is plenty of kernel code from vendors that's under GPL for Linux, BSD for FreeBSD and proprietary for Windows for example

@kbruen That is my fear, software freedom is about the user not the manufacturers after all 😕. I certainly don't have the means to produce the kind of hardware being talked about, making the freedom more abstract. Part of me thinks that this is a kind of false pragmatism that is due to the Linux Foundations funding, but I don't know enough about that to turn that hunch into a claim...

@pkal @kbruen Linus was sticking to the TiVo is ok argument before Linux Foundation even I think existed, it certainly wasn't relevant back then. Linus was wrong then too but it's his project so his choice 😄

@Logical_Error @neil I think there will be many new opportunities soon. The rules on software quality and traceable origins, the EU regs on and the like will create an opportunity I think to keep taking a lot of the shit and run developers and making them well known to government enforcement of security regulations.
Quality and maintainability are hard to achieve when your supplier hates you, and the regs will push out a lot of problematic mostly but not always Chinese crap.

@torvalds

The GPL has always been a government regulation monkey patch. It's easy to see many other irregularities which need patching, and be compelled to patch. The GPLs limits do not make that untrue.

Framing a TV maker's devices as their property even after sale, is wrong. Regulation, not the GPL should compel dispersement of post sale reownership on everything. Of course.

And maybe eventually governments won't be quite so behind the times. Alas. Not today.

@etchedpixels Could you point that out in https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt? (Or https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0)

I only see "later" in Section 9, and there is a big IF attached to "any later version". https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/COPYING does explicitly say "GNU General Public License version 2 only".

@osma @ghul @pkal

@wonka @osma @ghul @pkal lots of the kernel was and is V2 or later if you follow actual licences issued by the authors. Ditto the syscall exception was also never agreed to by third parties. I to be clear think it's a non issue anyway because the intent was clear, and people had decades to object but didn't.

@bastelwombat @pkal @torvalds that sounds like a pretty useless "freedom" and doesn't seem like the original intent behind the GPL. Didn't the GPL come into existence because of closed source printers?

@karen he's talking specifically about the claims made about GPLv2, are those being misconstrued?

@funkyduck https://sfconservancy.org/news/2025/dec/24/vizio-msa-irrelevant-ruling/

@leeloo @torvalds @pkal Yes, but during manufacturing, it is their hardware. So, according to Linus, they shouldn’t be forced during manufacturing to make allowances for you to put your own build of Linux on the device.

@zl2tod @iank @torvalds >> I don't take your post seriously and wouldn't normally reply but you have a megaphone which might distract people.

it is odd, right? sir just confessed to being an ass, which left no room for reasoning in the toot

@leeloo @kbruen @torvalds @pkal

Which is why we stopped selling software in 1999 and moved to leasing it. (Plus we had a Millennium bug in brought-in dongles, and needed to get them out of users' hands before it came live.)

@argv_minus_one @torvalds

Netherlands somewhere?

@namedbird @torvalds

AIUI (IANAlawyer, let alone US lawyer),
- Joe Six-pack requests a copy of the source code to $Modified_GPLd_SW ;
- $GPL_violator does not comply.
-Joe Six-pack now has a complaint and can sue.

@torvalds the point is bass ackwards anyways. What we need is more #OpenFirmware as well as #OpenHardware.

It's about market precedent at the end of the day. It should be a consumer right to also receive the code for all the firmware used in the hardware purchased.

That's a separate problem entirely. It's a whole jungle of different licensing and distribution issues all together that shouldn't concern Linux.

This is why #CoreBoot is such a fantastic project and needs to be supported as well.

@trashheap The “argument” by the SFC is complete garbage, and always has been. There has been no question about the license, and I have made it very clear over the years. And the SFC knows that.

So when they argue their incorrect reading of the GPLv2 in court, they are absolutely not doing GPLv2 enforcement. They are trying to further an agenda that is invalid, and always has been, and is explicitly against the wishes of the actual copyright holders.

So the SFC is just pure trash.

If they want to “protect” some project, let them protect a project that asks for it - not one that is known to not want their kind of protection.

Because what they are doing is a racket, plain and simple.

@iank You might want to run this through the FSF board first before you make blatantly wrong statenents, cause your wrong.

@torvalds is also wrong, but for other reasons like not being able to read what the SFC actually stated.

@wonka @osma @ghul @pkal Re-reading this without the influence of christmas baileys I see where you are going - yes I think you are right on that.

Let the legal crowbar that opens up hardware access be the fact that hardware manufacturers are selling, not leasing, their product to the end consumers. If they are withholding an essential property right to the new owner, to install any operating instructions onto their Turing-complete general-purpose processing device, the correct tool to use is concrete property law, not intellectual property law.

@ghul @pkal GPL v2 was, IIRC, about 1988?
Which was well into the era of binary blobs on ROMs, game cartridges, etc. The question of "hardware controlled by built-in software" was live long before then, and GPL didn't cover it of choice.
In 1988, I was installing highly propriatory SW updates at work with a screwdriver and 2 ROMs on the 8088 industrial SBC.

@WellsiteGeo GPLv2 was released in 1991, version 1 was released in 1989. The basis of which was based on the GNU Emacs General Public License (with similar terms used in other parts of GNU) from 1985.

The GPL (any version) and ROMs are quite compatible, and have always been. The issue with TiVo was different, and @torvalds likes to ignore that fact (similar, in this thread where he ignores everything the SFC wrote or stated).

@ghul @pkal

@torvalds The intention is indeed clear that it does not extend to the hardware, but it's also clear that the intention is to be able to modify the behavior of your device (as evidenced by the trouble the FSF went through to describe in the LGPL how to preserve this ability without requiring access to the whole source code), rather than only to be able to study the code and run modified versions elsewhere.

@amszmidt I wonder why you think I’m ignoring or mis-reading what the SFC has written and stated? Because I’m sadly very familiar with their statements over the years.

Do you think the California Superior court judge also misread what the SFC stated? Because that judge also found their arguments lacking any basis in reality:

The Plain Language of the Agreements does not Support the Alleged Duty

(where that “Alleged Duty” is the baseless arguments from SFC about being able to re-install on the device).

I think you didn’t actually read the ruling, and you may perhaps have read just the flim-flam garbage that the SFC put out about the completely irrelevant issue of “continuing to function properly” which was what Vizio was using as their reason for not releasing keys.

Put another way: I can read. That superior court judge can read. I think you need to learn to read. And you need to take what the SFC then says in court - and on their blog - with a big pinch of salt.

I realize that other people like the GPLv3 and wish the Linux kernel was under that license. But that is simply not the case, and never has been and never will be.

Deal with reality, not your baseless wishes otherwise.

@torvalds well, it's your—and every contributer else's project, so 🙂

Wasn't that the whole point of GPLv3, which the kernel never adopted? To prevent "Tivioization"

@torvalds I didn't know you could post PDFs on the Fediverse.

@torvalds good seeing you here.

@amszmidt @WellsiteGeo @torvalds @pkal

GPLv2 was always ROM-friendly.

The later dispute wasn’t about firmware existence,
but about whether hardware must accept modified firmware.

That question was answered
only in GPLv3.

@torvalds When people say "intent of GPLv2" they often do not make it clear if it's the intent of GNU writing it they're talking about or the intent of you choosing it. It's pretty much a talking over each other situation.

IMO it's fine to make whatever argument in court because that's what civil court is for. It's nice that the court agrees with you so the kernel don't need to be relicensed. But it's also not the end of the world if the court agrees with SFC since It's clear that when GNU wrote GPL they did not intent for this loophole to exist, and many other people that used GPL did not want this loophole to exist for their software (hopefully they've relicensed to GPLv3 by now).

@torvalds @trashheap Another person who used to be sane flopping wildly. You do you. Let them do them. And maybe say something like "screw all you chumps who want to reuse old hardware" to be perfectly clear about your backwards stance.