by hn_acker 4 hours ago
For the SFC, the code (or rather, entitlement to receive complete corresponding source) has always been the point [1]. I don't think they ever asked for damages.
[1] https://sfconservancy.org/news/2025/jul/10/sfc-updates-motio...
Do you think they could be trying to open up the TV firmware, like when the WRT54G settlement launched what became OpenWrt and other open firmware projects?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linksys_WRT54G_series#Third-pa...
That kind of thing is both a deterrent to commercial violation of licenses (unplanned open sourcing), and moves open source forward.
Though I also like the idea of monetary penalties large enough to be a deterrent.
> Do you think they could be trying to open up the TV firmware
Yes, SFC is indeed trying to open up the software as happened with OpenWrt [1], though in this case the software in question is the operating system instead of the firmware.
I think the SFC also wanted to establish a legal precedent about the rights given by the GPLv2 to users. Unfortunately, such a precedent might not be forthcoming [2].
[1] https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html