from django.contrib import admin

from .models import Entry, EntryTag

@admin.register(EntryTag)

class EntryTagAdmin(admin.ModelAdmin):

    prepopulated_fields = {'slug': ('label',)}

@admin.register(Entry)

class EntryAdmin(admin.ModelAdmin):

    list_display = ('pub_date', 'headline', 'author')

    list_filter = ['pub_date']

    date_hierarchy = 'pub_date'

    search_fields = ['headline', 'summary', 'body']

    prepopulated_fields = {'slug': ("headline",)}

    filter_horizontal = ('tags',)

        if 'tags' in d.getlist('all'):

            d.setlist('tag', []) # remove tag queries

        d.setlist('all', []) # remove "all" from the query string

        base_url = '/blog/'

        if 'rss' in d:

            base_url = '/feeds/blog/'

            d.setlist('rss', []) # remove it

        query_string = d.urlencode()

        return relative_redirect(request, '{}{}{}'.format(base_url, '?' if query_string else '', query_string))

    else:

        authors = sorted(Person.objects.filter(currently_employed=True,

                                               entry__isnull=False).distinct(),

                         key=last_name)

        tags = EntryTag.objects.all().order_by('label')

        return render(request, 'blog/query.html', {'authors': authors, 'tags': tags})

def relative_redirect(request, path):

    from django import http

    host = request.get_host()

    url = "{}://{}{}".format(request.is_secure() and 'https' or 'http', host, path)

    return http.HttpResponseRedirect(url)

class BlogYearArchiveView(YearArchiveView):

    make_object_list = True

    allow_future = True

    extra_context = {}

    def get_context_data(self, **kwargs):

        context = super().get_context_data(**kwargs)

        context.update(self.extra_context)

        return context

class BlogMonthArchiveView(MonthArchiveView):

    allow_future = True

    extra_context = {}

    def get_context_data(self, **kwargs):

        context = super().get_context_data(**kwargs)

        context.update(self.extra_context)

        return context

class BlogDayArchiveView(DayArchiveView):

    allow_future = True

    extra_context = {}

    def get_context_data(self, **kwargs):

        context = super().get_context_data(**kwargs)

        context.update(self.extra_context)

        return context

class BlogDateDetailView(DateDetailView):

    allow_future = True

    extra_context = {}

    def get_context_data(self, **kwargs):

        context = super().get_context_data(**kwargs)

        context.update(self.extra_context)

        return context

<h2 id="bkuhn">Bradley M. Kuhn</h2>

<p><a href="http://ebb.org/bkuhn/">Bradley M. Kuhn</a> is

the <a href="/about/staff/#bkuhn">Policy Fellow and Hacker-in-Residence</a>

at <a href="/">Software Freedom Conservancy</a> and editor-in-chief

of <a href="https://copyleft.org">copyleft.org</a>. Kuhn began his work in

the software freedom movement as a volunteer in 1992, when he became an early

adopter of Linux-based systems, and began contributing to various Free

Software projects, including Perl.  He worked during the 1990s as a system

administrator and software developer for various companies, and taught AP

Computer Science at Walnut Hills High School in Cincinnati.  Kuhn's

non-profit career began in 2000, when he was hired by the FSF.  As FSF's

Executive Director from 2001–2005, Kuhn

led <a href="https://www.fsf.org/licensing">FSF's GPL enforcement</a>,

launched <a href="https://www.fsf.org/associate/">its Associate Member

program</a>, and invented

the <a href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html">Affero GPL</a>.  Kuhn

was appointed President of Software Freedom Conservancy in April 2006, was

Conservancy's primary volunteer from 2006–2010, and has been a

full-time staffer since early 2011.  Kuhn holds a summa cum laude B.S. in

Computer Science

from <a href="http://www.loyola.edu/academic/computerscience">Loyola

University in Maryland</a>, and an M.S. in Computer Science from

the <a href="http://www.cs.uc.edu/">University of

Cincinnati</a>.  <a href="http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn/articles/thesis/">Kuhn's

Master's thesis</a> discussed methods for dynamic interoperability of Free

Software programming languages.  Kuhn received

the <a href="http://www.oscon.com/oscon2012/public/schedule/detail/25039">O'Reilly

Open Source Award in 2012</a>, in recognition for his lifelong policy work on

copyleft licensing.  Kuhn has <a href="http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/">a

blog</a> and co-hosts

the audcast, <a href="http://faif.us/"><cite>Free as in Freedom</cite></a>.</p>

<h2 id="allison">Dr. Allison Randal - Chair of the Board</h2>

<p> Over the course of multiple decades as a free software developer,

 Allison has worked in a wide variety of projects and domains, from

 games, linguistic analysis tools, websites, mobile apps, shipping

 fulfillment, and talking smart-home appliances, to programming language

 design, compilers, hypervisors, containers, deployment automation,

 database replication, operating systems and kernels, and hardware

 architectures and microarchitectures.</p>

<p>She is a board member at the Open Infrastructure Foundation, vice chair

 of the Microarchitecture Side Channels (Security) SIG at RISC-V

 International, and co-founder of the FLOSS Foundations group for free

 software community leaders. At various points in the past she has served

 as chair of the board at the Open Infrastructure Foundation, president

 and board member of the Open Source Initiative, president and board

 member of the Perl Foundation, board member of the Python Software

 Foundation, chair of the board at the Parrot Foundation, chief architect

 of the Parrot virtual machine, Open Source Evangelist at O’Reilly Media,

 conference chair of OSCON, Technical Architect of Ubuntu, Open Source

 Advisor at Canonical, Distinguished Technologist and Open Source

 Strategist at HP, and Distinguished Engineer at SUSE. She collaborates

 in the Debian and RISC-V projects, and currently works on free software

 and open hardware at Rivos.</p>

<h2 id="tony">Tony Sebro</h2>

<p>Tony currently serves as the Deputy General Counsel for

    the <a href="https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Home">Wikimedia

    Foundation</a>, where he manages the day-to-day operations of Wikimedia's

    legal department, and provide specific expertise on free and open source

    licensing, intellectual property, non-profit law, and privacy matters.

<p>The staff are listed alphabetically by surname.</p>

<h2 id="dimesio">Rosanne DiMesio - Technical Bookkeeper</h2>

<p>Rosanne DiMesio is the Technical Bookkeeper at the Software Freedom

Conservancy where she handles incoming and outgoing accounting

activities for all its member projects as well as financial operations

for Conservancy itself. Rosanne has been volunteering with the Wine

Project since 2008 where she focuses on user support and documentation.

She has worked as an English teacher, a freelance writer and as IT

support. She is passionate about helping free software projects improve

their user experience. Rosanne received her Masters in Communication &

Theater at the University of Illinois at Chicago and her Bachelor’s

degree in English from the University of Chicago.</p>

<h2 id="denver">Denver Gingerich - Director of Compliance</h2>

<p>Denver manages SFC's license compliance work, including its technical parts

(such as triaging new reports and verifying complete corresponding source) as

well as planning and carrying out our enforcement strategy (with advice and

input from SFC's Executive Director and Policy Fellow).  Outside of SFC, Denver

also co-runs a FOSS business. Previously, Denver authored financial trading

software on Linux.  Denver writes free software in his spare time: his patches

have been accepted into Wine, Linux, and wdiff.  Denver received his BMath in

Computer Science from the University of Waterloo.  He gives presentations about

digital civil rights and how to ensure FOSS remains sustainable as a community

and financially, having spoken at conferences such as LinuxCon North America,

Texas Linux Fest, LibrePlanet, CopyCamp Toronto, FOSSLC's Summercamp,

CopyleftConf, and the Open Video Conference.</p>

<h2 id="tracy">Tracy Homer - Operations Manager</h2>

Bringing her super-skills of organization and love of bureaucracy,

she helps things run at SFC smoothly behind the scenes.

Tracy also serves on the board of her local hackerspace, an organization

committed to teaching and promoting open technology exclusively.

She feels that open techonology allows people to express their creativity

regardless of their financial situation or technical background.

Tracy is currently persuing a degree in GIS from the University of Tennessee.</p>

<h2 id="bkuhn">Bradley M. Kuhn - Policy Fellow and Hacker-in-Residence</h2>

<p><a href="http://ebb.org/bkuhn/">Bradley M. Kuhn</a> is

the <a href="https://sfconservancy.org/about/staff/#bkuhn">Policy Fellow and

Hacker-in-Residence</a> at <a href="https://sfconservancy.org/">Software Freedom

Conservancy</a> and editor-in-chief

of <a href="https://copyleft.org">copyleft.org</a>. Kuhn began his work in

the software freedom movement as a volunteer in 1992, when he became an early

adopter of Linux-based systems, and began contributing to various Free

Software projects, including Perl.  He worked during the 1990s as a system

administrator and software developer for various companies, and taught AP

Computer Science at Walnut Hills High School in Cincinnati.  Kuhn's

non-profit career began in 2000, when he was hired by the FSF.  As FSF's

Executive Director from 2001–2005, Kuhn

led <a href="https://www.fsf.org/licensing">FSF's GPL enforcement</a>,

launched <a href="https://www.fsf.org/associate/">its Associate Member

program</a>, and invented

the <a href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html">Affero GPL</a>.  Kuhn

began as Conservancy's primary volunteer from 2006–2010, and became its first

staff person in 2011.  Kuhn holds a summa cum laude B.S. in Computer Science

from <a href="http://www.loyola.edu/academic/computerscience">Loyola

University in Maryland</a>, and an M.S. in Computer Science from

the <a href="http://www.cs.uc.edu/">University of

  companies.  Yet, these compliance efforts ignore consistently the most

  essential promise of copyleft — the complete, Corresponding Source

  and “the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the

  executable&rdquo;.</p>

<p>We encourage our sustainers and software freedom enthusiasts everywhere to

  <a href="/copyleft-compliance/enforcement-strategy.html">read our detailed

  strategic plan for GPL enforcement</a> and its companion

  project, <a href="/copyleft-compliance/firmware-liberation.html">our

    Firmware Liberation Project</a>.</p>

<h2 id="projects">Compliance Relationship to Fiscally Sponsored Projects</h2>

<p>Historically, Conservancy was well-known for its ongoing license

compliance efforts on behalf of its BusyBox member project.  Today,

Conservancy does semi-regular compliance work for its BusyBox, Git, Inkscape,

Mercurial, Samba, QEMU and Wine member projects.  If you are a copyright

holder in any member project of Conservancy, please contact the project's

leadership committtee,

via <a href="mailto:PROJECTNAME@sfconservancy.org">&lt;PROJECTNAME@sfconservancy.org&gt;</a>

for more information on getting involved in compliance efforts in that

project.

</p>

<h2 id="linux">GPL Compliance Project For Linux Developers</h2>

<p>In May

2012, <a href="/news/2012/may/29/compliance/">Conservancy

launched</a> the <cite>GPL

Compliance Project for Linux Developers</cite>, which handles compliance and

enforcement activities on behalf of more than a dozen Linux copyright

holders.</p>

<p>The GPL Compliance Project for Linux Developers is comprised of copyright

holders in the kernel, Linux, who have contributed to Linux under its

license, <a href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html">the

GPLv2</a>. These copyright holders have formally asked Conservancy to engage

in compliance efforts for their copyrights in the Linux kernel.  In addition,

some developers have directly assigned their copyrights on Linux to Conservancy,

so Conservancy also enforces the GPL on Linux via its own copyrights in Linux.</p>

<p>Linux copyright holders who wish to assign copyright to or sign an enforcement agreement with

Conservancy should

  contact <a href="mailto:linux-services@sfconservancy.org">&lt;linux-services@sfconservancy.org&gt;</a>.

  In 2016,

  Conservancy <a href="/news/2016/nov/03/linux-compliance-agreements/">made

    public the template agreements used as part of this project</a>; both the

  <a href="/docs/blank_linux-enforcement-agreement.pdf">non-anonymous</a> and

  <a href="/docs/blank_anonymous-linux-enforcement-agreement.pdf">anonymous</a>

  versions are available.  However, please <strong>do not</strong> sign these

  unilaterally without contacting and discussing

  with <a href="mailto:linux-services@sfconservancy.org">&lt;linux-services@sfconservancy.org&gt;</a>

  first.</p>

<h2 id="debian">The Debian Copyright Aggregation Project</h2>

<p>In August 2015, <a href="/news/2015/aug/17/debian/">Conservancy announced the Debian Copyright Aggregation

Project</a>.  This project allows Debian contributors to assign copyrights to

Conservancy, or sign enforcement agreements allowing Conservancy to enforce

Free and Open Source (FOSS) licenses on their behalf.  Many Debian contributors

have chosen each of these options already, and more continue to join.</p>

<p>Debian contributors who wish to assign copyright to or sign an enforcement agreement with

Conservancy should contact <a href="mailto:debian-services@sfconservancy.org">&lt;debian-services@sfconservancy.org&gt;</a>.</p>

  threat to spectrum regulation.</p>

<p>Recently, <a href="https://sfconservancy.org/news/2020/sep/10/openwrt-joins/">OpenWrt joined Conservancy as one its member projects</a>,

  and Conservancy has committed to long-term assistance to this project.</p>

<p>OpenWrt has spurred companies to create better routers and other wireless

  devices than such companies would otherwise have designed because they now need to

  either compete with hobbyists, or (better still) cooperate with those hobbyists to

  create hardware that fully supports OpenWrt’s features and improvements

  (such as dealing

  with <a href="https://openwrt.org/docs/guide-user/network/traffic-shaping/sqm">the

  dreaded “bufferbloat” bugs</a>). This interplay between the hobbyist

  community and for-profit ventures promotes innovation in

  technology. Without both permission <em>and</em> the ability to build and

  modify the software on their devices, the hobbyist community

  shrinks. Without intervention to ensure companies respect the hobbyist

  community, hobbyists are limited by the oft-arbitrary manufacturer-imposed

  restraints in the OEM firmware. OpenWrt saved the wireless router market

  from this disaster; we seek to help other embedded electronic subindustries

  avoid that fate. The authors of GPL’d software chose that license so its

  source is usable and readily available to hobbyists. It is our duty, as

  activists for the software freedom of hobbyists, to ensure these legally

  mandated rights are never curtailed.</p>

<p>(More on the OpenWrt project’s history and its connection to GPL

  enforcement can be found

  in <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4lCMx-EI1s">Kuhn’s talk

    at <em>OpenWrt Summit 2016</em></a>.)</p>

<p>Conservancy has had substantial success in leveraging more device freedom

  in other subindustries through GPL compliance. In 2009, Conservancy, with

  co-Plaintiff Erik Andersen, sued fourteen defendants in federal court under

  achieved compliance for the BusyBox project in all fourteen

  cases. Most notably, the GPL-compliant source release obtained in the

  lawsuit for certain Samsung televisions provided the basis for

  the <a href="https://www.samygo.tv/">SamyGo project</a> — an alternative

  firmware that works on that era of Samsung televisions and allows consumers

  to modify and upgrade their firmware using FOSS.</p>

<p>Harald Welte also continued his efforts during the early and mid-2000s,

  after the Linksys enforcement, through

  his <a href="https://gpl-violations.org/">gpl-violations.org

    project</a>. Harald successfully sued many companies (mostly in the

  wireless router industry) in Germany to achieve compliance and yield source

  releases that helped OpenWrt during that period.</p>

<h2 id="importance-of-linux-enforcement-specifically">Importance of Linux Enforcement Specifically</h2>

<p>In recent years, embedded systems technology has expanded beyond wireless

  routers to so-called “Internet of Things” (IoT) devices designed for

  connectivity with other devices in the home and to the “Cloud”. Consumer

  electronics companies now feature and differentiate products based on

  Internet connectivity and related services. Conservancy has seen

  Linux-based firmwares on refrigerators, baby monitors, virtual assistants,

  soundbars, doorbells, home security cameras, police body cameras, cars, AV

  receivers, and televisions.</p>

<p>This wide deployment of general purpose computers into

  mundane household devices raises profound privacy and consumer rights

  implications. <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/15/us/Hacked-ring-home-security-cameras.html">Home</a> <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/01/23/family-says-hacked-nest-camera-warned-them-north-korean-missile-attack/">security</a> <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/06/05/617196788/s-c-mom-says-baby-monitor-was-hacked-experts-say-many-devices-are-vulnerable">cameras</a> <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/12/tech/ring-security-camera-hacker-harassed-girl-trnd/index.html">are</a> <a href="https://abc7.com/baby-monitor-hack-leads-to-kidnap-scare/4931822/">routinely</a> <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-44117337/security-footage-viewed-by-thousands">compromised</a>

  — invading the privacy and security of individual homes. Even when

  companies succeed in keeping out third parties, consumers

  are <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/aug/29/ring-amazon-police-partnership-social-media-neighbor">pressured

  by camera makers</a> to automatically upload their videos to local

{% extends "base_compliance.html" %}

{% block subtitle %}Copyleft Compliance Projects - {% endblock %}

{% block submenuselection %}LiberateFirmware{% endblock %}

{% block content %}

<h1 id="software-freedom-conservancy-proposal-for-firmware-liberation-project">Firmware Liberation Project</h1>

<p>Conservancy plans to select a class of product in the Linux-based embedded

system space.  For this product, Conservancy will launch, or assist, a

project that creates a functioning alternative firmware for those devices.

The promise of GPL enforcement is only realized through actual, practical use

and improvement of the released software for users.</p>

<h2 id="gpl-enforcement-needs-follow-through">GPL Enforcement Needs Follow-Through</h2>

<p>Simply enforcing the GPL is an important first step, and Conservancy

  <a href="enforcement-strategy.html">continues our efforts in that

  regard</a>. However, we can

  replicate <a href="/copyleft-compliance/enforcement-strategy.html#brief-history-of-user-focused-gpl-enforcement">the

  success found with OpenWrt</a> <em>only by</em> a substantial

  effort <strong>after</strong> enforcement occurs to turn the compliant

  source release into a viable alternative firmware for the platform.</p>

<p>Conservancy has seen non-compliant Linux-based firmwares on refrigerators,

  baby monitors, virtual assistants, soundbars, doorbells, home security

  cameras, police body cameras, cars, AV receivers, and televisions.  We

  believe that building an alternative firmware for one of these classes of

  devices — or joining our work with an existing alternative firmware project

  that is struggling due to lack of sources available — will lead to

  more palpable software freedom for users of these device.</p>

<h2 id="limited-success-of-alternative-hardware">Limited Success of

  Alternative Hardware</h2>

<p>Alternative hardware projects remain an essential component of small

  device freedom. Conservancy supports and engages with communities that seek

  to source and build IoT-style devices from the ground up. We’re excited to

  see deployable boards that allow Maker efforts to create new devices.</p>

<p>Nevertheless, we remain ever-cognizant that FOSS succeeded on servers,

  laptop, desktop, and wireless router computers <em>precisely</em> because

  users could buy commodity hardware at any store and install FOSS

  alternatives to the vendor-provided software.  Throughout the history of

  FOSS, most new users who seek to experience software freedom want to do so

  with their existing devices first.  Many don't even know much about the

  issues involved in software liberation <em>until they've already purchased

  hardware</em>.  Conservancy therefore believes support of alternative

  firmwares for such devices is paramount.</p>

<h3 id="demonstrating-the-power-of-software-freedom">Demonstrating the power

  of software freedom</h3>

<p>To many, the benefits of software freedom are abstract. For less technical

  users, the idea of modifying or even reviewing the software on their

{% extends "base_compliance.html" %}

{% block subtitle %}Copyleft Compliance Projects - {% endblock %}

{% block submenuselection %}HelpComply{% endblock %}

{% block content %}

<h1 id="ourwork">Help Defend Software Freedom and Rights</h1>

<p>Folks often ask us how they can help us defend the software freedoms and

  rights that copyleft makes possible.  There are lots of ways to help and we

  believe that the entire public can help.</p>

<h2 id="request">Request Source Code</h2>

<p>All versions of the GPL and LGPL allow companies to make an <em>offer</em>

    for Complete, Corresponding Source (CCS) <em>rather than</em> giving you

    the CCS outright with the product.  Sadly, <strong>many</strong>

    companies make an offer with no intention of actually providing that CCS

    to you.  As consumers, you have a right to that source code.  Look in

    every manual and “Legal Notices” section of every product you

    buy.  If you see an offer, follow the instructions and <strong>request

    that CCS</strong>!  If you don't get it, or they give you the run-around,

    then <a href="#reporting">report the violation to us</a>!</p>

<h2 id="reporting">Reporting GPL Violations To Us</h2>

<p>If you are aware of a license violation or compliance issue regarding any

  copyleft license, such as the AGPL, GPL or LGPL,

  please <a href="mailto:compliance@sfconservancy.org">contact us by email at

  &lt;compliance@sfconservancy.org&gt;</a>.</p>

<!--- FIXME: bkuhn is rewriting this blog post fresh the weekend of --

      2020-07-18 so we need not link to ebb.org anymore when we roll out

<p>If you think you've found a GPL violation, we encourage you to

   read <a href="http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2009/11/08/gpl-enforcement.html">this

   personal blog post by our Policy Fellow, Bradley M. Kuhn</a>, about good

   practices in discovering and reporting GPL violations.</p>

<h2 id="sustain">Donate to Sustain This Work</h2>

<p>Finally, Conservancy welcomes <a href="#donate-box"

  class="donate-now">donations</a> in support of our copyleft compliance work,

  and we encourage you to become a <a href="/sustainer/">an official

  Sustainer of Software Freedom Conservancy</a>. </p>

{% endblock %}

<p>Software Freedom Conservancy analyzed the TVs and concluded that not only

was Vizio not providing the source code and technical information that

copyleft licenses require, Vizio was not even informing its customers about

copylefted software and the rights it gives them as consumers.</p>

<h3>ABOUT SOFTWARE FREEDOM CONSERVANCY</h3>

<p>Software Freedom Conservancy is a nonprofit organization centered around

ethical technology. Our mission is to ensure the right to repair, improve,

and reinstall software. We promote and defend these rights through fostering

free and open source software (FOSS) projects, driving initiatives that

actively make technology more inclusive, and advancing policy strategies that

defend FOSS (such as copyleft). The organization is incorporated in New

York. For more information, go

to <a href="https://sfconservancy.org">sfconservancy.org</a>.</p>

<h3>SUPPLEMENTAL RESOURCES FOR JOURNALISTS</h3>

<ul>

<li><a href="https://sfconservancy.org/docs/software-freedom-conservancy-v-vizio-announce-press-kit.pdf">A

full press kit, with substantial additional information and resources for

    journalists covering this story, can be viewed and downloaded here.</li>

<li><a href="/docs/software-freedom-conservancy-v-vizio-complaint-2021-10-19.pdf">The

    legal complaint is available</a>.</li>

</ul>

<h3>MEDIA CONTACT</h3>

<p>Hannah Gregory, Media Rep for Good Causes<br/>

<a href="mailto:media@sfconservancy.org">&lt;media@sfconservancy.org&gt;</a></p>

{% endblock %}

{% extends "base_compliance.html" %}

{% block subtitle %}Copyleft Compliance Projects - {% endblock %}

{% block submenuselection %}PastLawsuits{% endblock %}

{% block content %}

<h2>The time has come to stand up for the GPL.</h2>

<p><strong>Update 2019-04-02:</strong> Please

  see <a href="https://sfconservancy.org/news/2019/apr/02/vmware-no-appeal/">this

  announcement regarding conclusion of the VMware suit in Germany</a>.  Since the suit has

  concluded, any funds you donate here will support our ongoing compliance efforts.  The

  remaining material below is left as it was before that announcement:</p>

<p><em>In March 2015, Conservancy <a href="/news/2015/mar/05/vmware-lawsuit/">announced Christoph Hellwig's

    lawsuit against VMware in Germany</a>.  In July 2016,

    we <a href="/news/2016/aug/09/vmware-appeal/">announced that Christoph

    would appeal the lower court's ruling</a>.</p>

    Support Conservancy's and Christoph's efforts in this area

    by <a href="/sustainer/">becoming a Conservancy

    sustainer</a> or <a href="#donate-box" class="donate-now">donating via

    the link on the right</a>.</em></p>

<p>We were told to ask nicely and repeatedly, so we did.</p>

<p>We asked allies to help us make contact in friendly and professional

  ways.</p>

<p>Everyone asked us to give companies as many chances as possible and as

  much help as possible to comply with copyleft, so we did.</p>

<p>We've worked for years to help VMware comply with the GPL, but they

NDA just to discuss settlement terms!</p>

release.  Christoph also

ranks 4th among those who have reviewed third-party source code, tirelessly

corrected and commented on other developers' contributions.  Christoph

licenses his code to the public under the terms of the GPL for practical and

ideological reasons.  VMware, a company with net revenue of over $1 billion

and over 14,000 employees, ignored Christoph's choice.  They took Christoph's

code from Linux and modified it to work with their own kernel without releasing

source code of the resulting complete work.  This is precisely the kind of

activity Christoph and other kernel developers seek to prevent by choosing

the GPL.  The GPL was written to prevent this specific scenario!</p>

<h3>This is a matter of principle.</h3>

<p>Free and open source software is everywhere and in everything; yet our

  software freedom is constantly eroded.</p>

<p>We want companies to incorporate our software into new products, but there

are a few simple rules.  Copylefted free software is so prevalent because

there's no way a company can compete without using a significant amount of

free software to bring products to market in reasonable time. They get so

much benefit from our work.  Allowing the whole community to review, use,

improve and work with the code seems very little to ask in return.  Copyleft

also ensures competitors cannot undercut those who contribute.  Without active enforcement, the GPL is

effectively no different from a non-copyleft license.</p>

<p>What point is there for companies to make sure that they're compliant if

there are no consequences when the GPL is violated? Many will continue to

ignore the rules without enforcement.  We know that there are so many

companies that willingly comply and embrace GPL as part of their business.

Some are temporarily out of compliance and need to be brought up to speed,

but willingly comply once they realize there is an issue.  Sadly, VMware sits

in the rare but infamous class of perpetually non-compliant companies. VMware

has been aware of their noncompliance for years but actively refuses to do

the right thing.  Help us do right by those who take the code in the spirit

it was given and comply with copyleft, and stop those don't.</p>

<p>We know that copyleft isn't a favorite licensing strategy for some in our

community.  Even so, this case will help bring clarity on the question of

combined and derivative works, and is essential to the future of all software

freedom.  This case deserves support from copyleft and non-copyleft free

software communities alike.</p>

<h3>Show you care</h3>

<p>Bad actors have become complacent because they think you don't care.  A

  strong show of public support for Conservancy and Christoph's position will

  help our legal case and demonstrate the interpretive context for it.

  Please <a href="#donate-box" class="donate-now">donate</a> to our campaign to enforce the GPL.  Help Conservancy

  increase its number of individual donors, so we have clear evidence to show

  bad actors that the GPL matters to the individuals in our community.

  After you <a href="#donate-box" class="donate-now">donate</a>, go and tell the world: &ldquo;Play by the rules, @VMware. I defend the #GPL with Christoph &amp; @Conservancy. #DTRTvmware  Help at https://sfconservancy.org/sustainer/ &rdquo; on your blog or microblog.

  </p>

<h3>Isn't the combined works and/or derivative works question a legal grey area?</h3>

<p>We don't think so, but this case will let the court to decide that question.

Either way, it's beneficial to our entire community to find out what the

judges think.  (Check out our <a href="/copyleft-compliance/vmware-lawsuit-faq.html">FAQ to find out more

information</a>.)</p>

<p>Help us pay for this expensive lawsuit and to generally defend software

  was matched up to $50,000. However, that $100,000 is just an initial step

  and there is so much GPL enforcement work to do.  So, please

  donate now: by becoming <a href="/sustainer/">a Conservancy Sustainer</a> or

  via <a href="#donate-box" class="donate-now">donate link on the right</a>.</p>

<h3>Want To Know More?</h3>

<p>Watch the video below of Conservancy Executive Director, Karen Sandler,

  <a href="/news/2015/mar/31/libreplanet/">delivering a keynote on this topic

  at

    LibrePlanet 2015</a>:</p>

<p>

 <video controls

         preload="auto" class="video-js vjs-default-skin"

         data-setup='{"height": 276,

                      "width": 640 }'>

    <source src="https://media.libreplanet.org/mgoblin_media/media_entries/113/karen-sandler-keynote-2015.medium.webm"

              type="video/webm; codecs="vp8, vorbis""

             />

 </video>

</p>

<p>Or, read <a href="/copyleft-compliance/vmware-lawsuit-faq.html">our FAQ about

    the lawsuit</a>.</p>

{% endblock %}

  financial accounts are audited annually by an independent accounting firm;

  we recently completed our fiscal year 2011 audit.  As usual, our auditors

  asked plenty of questions about our accounting software.  Conservancy uses

  only Free Software, of course, centered around a set of straightforward reporting

  scripts that we created to run on top

  of <a href="http://www.ledger-cli.org/">Ledger CLI</a>. (Conservancy's

  current configuration using Ledger CLI

  is <a href="https://gitorious.org/ledger/npo-ledger-cli">publicly

  documented and explained</a>.)</p>

<p>Our auditors were only familiar with proprietary accounting software, and

  so our system seemed foreign to them, as it relies on Ledger CLI's text files, Emacs and

  version control.  During their questions

  about our setup, we asked them to hypothetically prescribe a specific

  proprietary software setup as a model for  managing Conservancy's

  accounts.  Our chief auditor started by mentioning a few well-known

  proprietary solutions.   But then he paused and continued:  <q>Given

  that Conservancy's a fiscal sponsor with so many temporarily restricted

  accounts, existing systems really wouldn't do that good of a job for

  you</q>.</p>

<p>Indeed, Conservancy reached out into the broader fiscal sponsorship

  community beyond the <abbr title="Free, Libre and Open Source Software">FLOSS</abbr>

  <abbr title="Non-profit Organization">NPO</abbr> community and discovered that many larger fiscal sponsors &mdash; even

  those willing to use proprietary components — have cobbled together

  their own unique systems, idiosyncratically tailored to their specific

  environments.  Thus, good, well-designed, and reusable accounting software

  for non-profit fiscal sponsorship is not just missing in the software

  freedom community; it's missing altogether.</p>

<p>The project that Conservancy proposes will take a modest step

  <a href="#quotes">Many NPO leaders and academics agree</a> with Conservancy about the

  immediate need for work to begin on this

  effort.  <a id="endorsements"

  style="text-decoration:none"></a><a href="http://april.org">April</a>, <a href="https://www.fracturedatlas.org">Fractured Atlas</a>, The <a href="http://fsf.org">Free Software

  Foundation</a>, The <a href="https://www.mozilla.org/foundation/">Mozilla

Foundation</a>, The <a href="http://www.gnome.org/foundation/">GNOME Foundation</a>,  <a

        href="https://openhatch.org/">OpenHatch</a>, <a href="http://opensource.org/node/658">Open Source Initiative</a>,

  <a href="http://QuestionCopyright.org">QuestionCopyright.org</a>, and <a href="http://www.spi-inc.org/">Software in the Public Interest</a> have

  all endorsed Conservancy's plan, and they encourage you to <a href="#donate-box" class="donate-now">donate and

  support it</a>.</p>

<p>Conservancy is uniquely qualified to undertake this task.  Using only Free

  Software, Conservancy already meets the complex accounting challenges of

  earmarked, directed donations for over thirty different projects.  We've

  learned much about this work in our first seven years of

  operation, and we're prepared to apply what we've learned to solve

  this problem not just for ourselves, but for anyone who seeks a

  solution that both respects software freedom and handles non-profit

  accounting for all sorts of NPOs, including fiscal sponsors.  General NPO

  accounting is just a “base case” of fiscal sponsorship (i.e.,

  an NPO is just a fiscal sponsor for one and only one specific project),

  and Conservancy therefore believes a solution that handles fiscal sponsors

  will also handle the simpler case as well.</p>

<h3>Why Conservancy Must Fund This Work</h3>

<p>As it stands, nearly all Open Source and Free Software NPOs either use

  proprietary software, or fully outsource their bookkeeping and accounting

  to third-parties.  Those that don't do so (such as Conservancy and the Free

  Software Foundation) have long complained that existing Free Software in

  this area is inadequate, and have been forced to develop customized,

  one-off solutions in-house to make the systems work.</p>

{% extends "base_vizio.html" %}

{% block subtitle %}Press - {% endblock %}

{% block submenuselection %}VizioQandA{% endblock %}

{% block content %}

<h1 id="QandA">Vizio Lawsuit Q &amp; A</h1>

<a href="https://shoestring.agency/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/SFC_QA_GeneralPublic.pdf">[

         A PDF version of this Q&amp;A is available. ]</a>

<h3 id="">Q: Who is the defendant in this lawsuit?</h3>

<p>The defendant is Vizio, Inc., a U.S.-based TV maker and media company that has been publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange since March 2021.</p>

<h3 id="">Q: What did Vizio do wrong?</h3>

<p>The lawsuit alleges that Vizio’s TV products, built on its SmartCast system, contain software that Vizio unfairly appropriated from a community of developers who intended consumers to have very specific rights to modify, improve, share, and reinstall modified versions of the software.</p>

<h3 id="">Q: So, Vizio didn’t create SmartCast?</h3>

<p>It appears from extensive research that the core components of SmartCast were not created by Vizio, but rather, are based on various components licensed to the public under free and open-source software (FOSS) licenses. Most notably, many of the programs that are part of the SmartCast system are licensed under the GPL.</p>

<h3 id="">Q: What is copyleft?</h3>

<p>Copyleft is a term used to describe a license that uses the rights granted under copyright—not to restrict usage, but instead to ensure that the software is always shared freely.</p>

<h3 id="">Q: What is FOSS? </h3>

<p>“FOSS” stands for free and open-source software that allows for software freedom. “Software freedom” means the freedom of a user to run, study, (re)distribute, and (re)install (modified) versions of a piece of software. More generally, it is the idea that we are entitled to rights when using software and there should be equal protections for privacy and redistribution. The rights should treat everyone equally: big businesses and individual consumers and users alike.</p>

<h3 id="">Q: I thought FOSS allowed companies to simply take software from the commons and put it into their products whenever they wanted? Isn’t that the whole point of FOSS—for companies to get components for their products and lower their cost of production?</h3>

<p>While that is the main advantage that big corporations get from FOSS, it was never the primary impetus behind FOSS. Particularly through special licensing terms like the GPL, this licensing approach creates an egalitarian community of users, developers, and consumers. When functioning correctly, each individual and organization that participates in FOSS stands on equal footing with everyone else. Licenses like the GPL have rules to assure everyone's rights in that ecosystem are treated with equal respect and reverence. This is why compliance with these rules is important and we must stand up against companies who refuse to comply. </p>

<h3 id="">Q: But, I'm not a software developer. Why should I care at all that Vizio won’t let me modify and reinstall GPL’d components in its SmartCast system?</h3>

<p>Right-to-repair software is essential for everyone, even if you don't know how to make the repairs yourself. Once upon a time, we had lots of local vendors that could repair and fix TVs when they broke.  That’s because TVs were once analog hardware devices that could be taken apart and understood merely by inspection from someone with the sufficient knowledge. TVs today are simply a little computer attached to a large display. As such, the most important part that needs repairs is usually when the software malfunctions, has bugs, or otherwise needs upgrades and changes. The GPL was specifically designed to assure such fixes could be done, and that consumers (or agents those consumers hire on the open market) can make such repairs and changes. </p>

<h3 id="">Q: Alright, that makes sense, but I’m happy with Vizio’s SmartCast right now. What difference does it make to me if Vizio won’t give me the rights under the GPL?</h3>

<p>Time and time again, companies stop supporting the software build for the device long before the computer inside the device fails. In other words, these devices are built for planned premature obsolescence. </p>

<p>By refusing to comply with the pro-consumer terms of the GPL, Vizio has the power to disable your TV at any time it wants, over your internet connection, without your knowledge or consent. If Vizio complied with the GPL, all would not be lost in this scenario: volunteers and third-party entities could take GPL’d software as a basis for a replacement for SmartCast. Without these rights, consumers are essentially forced to purchase new devices when they could be repaired.</p>

<h3 id="">Q: Creation of a replacement for SmartCast seems far-fetched to me. After all, most of the software in SmartCast is not actually GPL’d, only a portion of the components and programs are GPL’d.  How will Vizio's compliance with the GPL actually lead to an alternative firmware?</h3>

<p>Years ago, people said the very same thing about wireless routers, which had only partially GPL'd firmwares. However, thanks to actions to enforce the GPL in the wireless router market, the OpenWrt project was born! That project is now the premiere replacement software for wireless routers from almost every major manufacturer on the market. There is now healthy competition and even occasional cooperation between a hobbyist and community-led firmware project and the wireless router manufacturers. We believe the same can happen for TVs, but the first step is assuring the entire TV market complies with the GPL.</p>

<h3 id="">Q: What indications do you have that compliance with the GPL will be a catalyst for alternative firmwares?</h3>

<p>Beyond the OpenWrt example, Software Freedom Conservancy sued 14 defendants for GPL violations in 2009, including Samsung for its 2009-era TV models. Thanks to the source release that was achieved through the settlement of that lawsuit, a community-led SamyGo project was created for that era of TVs. (source)</p>

<h3 id="">Q: Who is the plaintiff in the lawsuit?</h3>

<p>Software Freedom Conservancy is the plaintiff in this case. The organization is filing as a third-party beneficiary, as the purchaser of a product which has copylefted code on it. A consumer of a product such as this has the right to access the source code so that it can be modified, studied, and redistributed (under the appropriate license conditions).</p>

<h3 id="">Q: What makes this different than other GPL compliance lawsuits?</h3>

<p>In the past, the plaintiffs have always been copyright holders of the specific GPL code. In this case Software Freedom Conservancy is demonstrating that it's not just the copyright holders, but also the receivers of the licensed code which are entitled to their rights.</p>

<h3 id="">Q: What type of case is this?  How does it compare to previous litigation by Software Freedom Conservancy regarding the GPL?</h3>

<p>Previously, Software Freedom Conservancy filed as a copyright holder in federal court, or coordinated or funded litigation by other copyright holders in copyright cases in the U.S. and Germany. This is an example of how, historically, GPL litigation has focused on the rights of the developers. However, the rights assured by the GPL are actually not intended primarily for the original developers, but rather for people who purchase products that contain GPL’d software. That is what makes this litigation unique and historic in terms of defending consumer rights. It is the first case that focuses on the rights of individual consumers as third-party beneficiaries of the GPL.</p>

<h3 id="">Q: Why are you filing a third-party beneficiary claim instead of a copyright claim?</h3>

<p>For too long, GPL enforcement has focused only on the rights of developers, who are often not the ones impacted by the technology in question. Some of those same developers even have lucrative jobs working for the various companies that violate the GPL. The GPL was designed to put the rights of hobbyists, individual developers, consumers, small companies, and nonprofit organizations on equal footing with big companies. With the advent of more contributions to GPL’d software coming from for-profit multinational corporations and fewer from individuals, the rights of these other parties are often given second-class billing. The third-party beneficiary claim prioritizes the consumers, who are the users and the most important beneficiaries of the rights under GPL.</p>

<h3 id="">Q:  Are you saying the rights of developers under the GPL are not important?</h3>

<p>Not at all! Most would agree that individual developers care deeply about the software freedom of users. They are the artists who create the amazing FOSS on which all of us rely. However, as Francis Ford Coppola once said (paraphrased), “to understand who holds the power in any culture, look not to the artists but who employs the artists”—a quote which suits this situation well. Large multinational corporations have co-opted FOSS for their own bottom lines. While many developers privately cheer Software Freedom Conservancy’s efforts and donate money to this cause, they fear the power that their employers exert and have asked Software Freedom Conservancy to fight for the software freedom of users.</p>

<h3 id="">Q:  Why is this important for the future of developers?</h3>

<p>The next generation of developers comes from the users of today. The golden age of FOSS that the industry now enjoys came to fruition from the counterculture created by FOSS activists in the 1990s and early 2000s. During this time, Linux and other GPL’d software was considered just a curiosity (and was even accused of being anti-American). Nevertheless, the rights assured by the GPL ultimately led to a new generation of software developers learning how to build Linux and all the amazingly useful FOSS around it. To recruit a diverse group of the next generation of enthusiastic developers, we must ensure that the rights under GPL are available to every single individual, consumer and hobbyist around the globe. That is what this lawsuit is about.</p>