Article illustration 1

In a significant ruling with implications for open-source licensing, a California court has affirmed that GPLv2 focuses on software freedom, not hardware access—a position long championed by Linux creator Linus Torvalds. The case centered on Vizio's use of Linux in smart TVs without initially providing corresponding source code, prompting a lawsuit from the Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC).

The Core Dispute

Vizio violated GPLv2 by failing to share source code for its Linux-based TVs—a breach later remedied. However, the SFC argued the license required Vizio to provide installation keys enabling users to recompile and reinstall modified software on the original hardware while retaining functionality. The court rejected this interpretation.

"The language of the Agreements is unambiguous," stated the ruling. "It does not impose the duty [...] to allow users to reinstall the software, modified or otherwise, back onto its smart TVs [...] ensuring the smart TVs continue to function properly."

The judge emphasized that GPLv2 ensures the right to copy, modify, and redistribute code—including for use in other applications—but doesn't extend to mandating hardware reflash capabilities or operational guarantees for modified software.

Torvalds' Response

In a rare social media post, Torvalds called the ruling a validation of his views, criticizing the SFC's legal strategy:

"Please, SFC - stop using the kernel for your bogus legal arguments where you try to expand the GPLv2 to be something it isn't."

He reiterated that GPLv2 governs software rights, not hardware design, drawing parallels to how the license doesn't control user-space applications running atop the kernel.

Community Reaction & Implications

Developers debated whether the ruling undermines the Free Software Foundation's "freedom 1"—the right to modify software for personal use. Some argued:

  • Without hardware reinstallation capabilities, modifications are theoretical for device-specific code

Others countered that the license permits using modified software elsewhere, preserving core freedoms without infringing on hardware sovereignty.

The decision reinforces that:
1. Vendors must provide complete corresponding source code
2. Hardware lockdowns (like secure boot or signed firmware) remain permissible under GPLv2
3. Broader hardware access requirements would require explicit licensing terms (e.g., GPLv3)

This ruling stabilizes expectations for embedded Linux deployments but leaves unresolved tensions between software freedom and closed hardware ecosystems.

Source: Social.kernel.org post by Linus Torvalds analyzing Vizio vs. SFC ruling (Case No. 2021-01226723)