5 January 2026
SFC v. Vizio ruling on General Public License compliance: Key takeaways
A California Superior Court appears to have recently answered a longstanding question in the open-source software community and in providing that answer, gave television manufacturer Vizio clarity.
The court determined that version 2.0 of GNU General Public License (GPLv2) and version 2.1 of the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPLv2.1) – collectively, the GPL v2 Licenses – do not impose an obligation on manufacturers, such as Vizio, to allow reinstallation of modified source code on their products while ensuring that products remain functional following modifications to the source code. Instead, the obligation is merely to provide source code in a manner that allows it to be obtained and revised by the users or others for use in other applications.[1]
This alert provides key takeaways from the ruling for users of open-source software.
Understanding the order
Background
On October 19, 2021, the Software Freedom Center (SFC) filed suit against Vizio, demanding, among other things, that Vizio provide the source code for certain software included in Vizio’s smart-TV “SmartCast” software.
SFC based its claim on the GPL v2 Licenses governing certain software included in SmartCast because those licenses require that any distributions of the relevant licensed software be accompanied by either (1) a copy of the “complete corresponding source code” of the software or (2) an offer to provide such source code. Depending on the manner in which Vizio used the open-source code, this obligation in the GPL v2 Licenses may require Vizio to provide the source code to proprietary software of SmartCast.
SFC filed its lawsuit after Vizio allegedly refused multiple requests to provide the relevant source code. Unlike previous United States cases involving the GPL v2 Licenses – which have all been brought by the copyright holders – this case was notable because SFC brought the case as an individual end user consumer, claiming rights as a third-party beneficiary of the GPL v2 Licenses. While the primary issue in this case is whether end user consumers are intended third-party beneficiaries under the GPL v2 Licenses, an important sub-issue arose during the case.
Reinstallation requirement
The sub-issue that arose dealt with the scope of obligation in the GPL v2 Licenses that requires a distributor of licensed code – in this case, Vizio – to either provide or offer to provide the “complete source code.” “Complete source code" means, for purposes of the GPLv2 Licenses, “all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.”[2] The LGPLv2.1 contains similar language.[3]
SFC claimed that Vizio failed to comply with the requirements of the GPL v2 Licenses because Vizio did not provide source code in a form that could be compiled and installed on the television sets.[4] SFC has long contended that the GPL v2 Licenses’ requirement to provide “scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable” includes an implied obligation to provide additional information – such as installation keys – required to actually install the recompiled executable on the device.
Vizio ultimately requested summary adjudication on the issue of whether the GPL v2 Licenses impose a contractual duty to provide the information needed for a person of ordinary skill to modify and reinstall modified software on the same device while ensuring continued functionality.
The court’s findings
The court, while noting that “implied terms are not favored in the law and should be read into contracts only upon grounds of obvious necessity,” found that the plain language of the GPL v2 Licenses is unambiguous and “does not impose an obligation to 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.”
Instead, the court held, the GPL v2 Licenses’ obligation to provide the complete source code 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,” and that 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 GPL v2 Licenses.
Key takeaways
The court’s ruling provides needed clarity on the obligations imposed by the GPL v2 Licenses. At this time, it does not appear that users of software governed by GPL v2 Licenses have an obligation to allow reinstallation of the software on the device.
It is important to note, however, that this order applies only to the GPL v2 Licenses (i.e., version 2.0 of GNU General Public License and version 2.1 of the GNU Lesser General Public License). Versions 3.0 of the GNU General Public License and GNU Lesser General Public License were written with the express intent of requiring distributors to provide installation information for certain “User Products,” and both contain obligations to provide “methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product.”
It is also important to note that this decision involved the analysis of the GPL v2 Licenses in the US. Judges in other jurisdictions may be more willing to imply terms when the contract itself is silent.
While the issue of reinstallation rights is important in the interpretation of the GPL v2 Licenses, the more pressing third-party beneficiary issue remains undecided in the case.
Given the potential increase in litigation risk from noncompliance with open-source licenses, if the court finds that recipients of open-source software can enforce the obligations of open-source licenses – even if they are not the copyright holders – users of open-source software may consider taking the following precautions:
- Document open-source usage: In order to minimize the risk of liability from noncompliance, organizations are encouraged to adopt policies and procedures that allow them to maintain a current and accurate inventory of all the open-source components that their software incorporates, particularly any components that are subject to the GPL v2 Licenses and other copyleft licenses.
- Understand open-source license obligations and ensure compliance: Before incorporating any open-source code into their products, it is important for organizations to understand the requirements of the licenses that govern the use of such software. The GPL v2 Licenses are not the only open-source licenses that require the provision of source code, so organizations are urged to understand the licenses to ensure that their use of open-source software does not trigger the obligation to disclose the source code of their proprietary software to end users.
Next steps
The case is scheduled to go to trial on January 12, 2026 and we will continue to monitor it with interest. In the meantime, DLA Piper’s Technology and Commercial Transactions practice includes several experienced lawyers to help you comply with open-source licenses, understand the risks and benefits of utilizing open-source software, and conduct any necessary due diligence to identify open-source issues.
For further information or if you have any questions, please contact any of the authors.
[1] Order Granting Vizio, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Adjudication, Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. v. Vizio, Inc., No. 30-2021-01226723-CU-BC-CJC (Super. Ct. Cal. Orange Cnty, Dec. 23, 2025).
[2] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html, Section 3.
[3] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.en.html, Section 0.
[4] First Amended Complaint Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. v. Vizio, Inc., No. 30-2021-01226723-CU-BC-CJC (Super. Ct. Cal. Orange Cnty, Jan. 10, 2024) at 133, 134 and 137.
