Inside the fight to force Vizio to share Linux-based source code for its TVs’ OS
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
“…a California jury will decide in August whether Vizio must provide that code in executable form to SFC and any Vizio TV owner who wants it.”
I’m not understanding. This says the TV OS (or whatever it’s called) is to be provided in binary. If so, then users must try to reverse engineer it. Hardly a win. Shouldn’t that say ‘source code or text’ form?
I’m not understanding. This says the TV OS (or whatever it’s called) is to be provided in binary. If so, then users must try to reverse engineer it. Hardly a win. Shouldn’t that say ‘source code or text’ form?
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Can we add an info box or at least donation links on articles involving non-profits fighting for the public good, please?
I just donated myself. Here’s the link: https://sfconservancy.org/donate/
I just donated myself. Here’s the link: https://sfconservancy.org/donate/
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
It's awkward phrasing but it's explained more clearly later in the article.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
Maybe so, but IBM can still provide the backing for the lawsuit in such a scenario. That's a huge gorilla that you do not want to provoke, because they absolutely have skin in the game, and if they need to defend it, they not only can - they will.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
"Vizio must provide that code in executable form" ... Huh? There's 'source code', and there's 'executables'... They're trying to get the source code and all related libraries etc so that users can make changes and compile THEIR OWN executables... "Code" is generally not directly executable
Upvote
-6
(0
/
-6)
I have a secondary wondering: this article is positioned in that a finding for FSC would change the market and enforce right to repair... but what happens if it goes the other way? If VIZIO gets away with "we only have to honor the parts of a software license that have to do with publishing; it's not a contract" -- that upends not only the assumptions behind all OSS, but also behind a LOT of other software licenses, including EULAs (because nobody agrees to those before they use the software; the EULA hinges on the fact that the user has NO rights to the software without what's granted by the software license and associated EULA).
So if VIZIO wins, that means vendors get to do whatever they want with OSS licenses, but also means that end users get to ignore EULAs.
I wonder if they've thought that one through?
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Shades of Medthievia.
If you know that reference I feel sorry for you; maybe you spent your childhood in the catacombs.
If you know that reference I feel sorry for you; maybe you spent your childhood in the catacombs.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Why not just buy a TV, even smart, turn it on but never connect it to the internet, or maybe just for setup if that’s needed, then keep it disconnected from network. Plug in Apple TV or similar set top box that you trust and never worry about ad tracking etc?
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
This is almost exactly why I dislike DLC/IAP in entertainment software. In the beginning, you were sold a more-or-less complete product. Now, it's licences upon licences.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
A lot of these smart TVs today will not operate at all without an internet connection. In the case of Apple TV, the reason you might not want that is because Apple is just going to brick it some day in the future. I have one of the 1st generation apple TVs and it's a paperweight at this point. Apple has completely blocked it from usage. Even if you mod it (which I have), you can't run apps on it because of the way apple forces version verification into their app packages.
Upvote
-3
(4
/
-7)
If a smart tv maker lost the ability to track and force ads at scale, they would just charge more for each tv.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Upvote
1
(2
/
-1)
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
Cat_Herder
Ars Centurion
No more than 20% over the price of the ad-subsidized model. Although I'm sure that the TV manufacturers will whine that they aren't making any money off the TV at that price, which is an outright lie.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
I guess by that exact logic, the EULAs I get when I install games are also just licenses, not contracts, which means I can just ignore it. Thanks, walmart!
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
I have a Vizio “smart” TV. I connected it to the internet the first time I used it to make sure the software was up to date, then proceeded to disconnect it forever, instead using an Apple TV. With HDMI-CEC and a Bluetooth speaker providing audio, I’ve never had any issues.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Add me to the list of people who blocks TVs from connecting to the internet.
Vizio earned more revenue from data and metrics versus TV sales.
Vizio earned more revenue from data and metrics versus TV sales.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Let's name names here. What specific makes and models of smart TVs won't allow you to select an input and display an HDMI device without an Internet connection?
(Other than that weird Telly dual-screen monstrosity - which I don't think has made it to production - I suspect the answer is zero. Nevertheless, it would be good to know the specifics if these actually exist.)
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Not quite, I do not own a TV, only computer monitors and they have no stupid smart software to show ads or track what I watch, at least not yet
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
That is only true if someone is trying to buy a device with a TV tuner, because most jurisdictions require a TV tuner if a device is to be marketed as a television. If a users just wants a display, there are still plenty of options, although they are generally marketed as computer monitors or displays instead, although they are less likely to be found in big box stores, and typically have to be purchased online or possibly from Micro Center.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
In name, yes, although in terms of their activities and principles they are about freedom and not cheapness.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
@MoonShark There is no such thing as Freedom Software Foundation, it's called the Free Software Foundation.
Upvote
0
(1
/
-1)
SFC is a charity and takes donations https://sfconservancy.org/about/
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
There are many excuses companies avoid GPLv3 and LGPL these days.
One unexpected reason is because people have been using Mythos to automate bug reporting, resulting in open source developers being flooded by duplicate Mythos slop report spam.
Then there is the usual incompetence of "management" and cheap labor who don't even bother to know the what and why of GPL so they don't want to deal with it at all.
Race to the bottom with cheap labor, get a serving of ignorance.
One unexpected reason is because people have been using Mythos to automate bug reporting, resulting in open source developers being flooded by duplicate Mythos slop report spam.
Then there is the usual incompetence of "management" and cheap labor who don't even bother to know the what and why of GPL so they don't want to deal with it at all.
Race to the bottom with cheap labor, get a serving of ignorance.
Upvote
0
(1
/
-1)
I doubt that's at play here. GPL abuse has a long and storied tradition among unscrupulous companies who simply want to ride on the coattails of others and contribute nothing back when asked.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
True, to the point that companies decide their man hours are not worth spending dealing with publicly reported issues, much less AI slop issues, because they want to charge for that sort of support.
Upvote
-2
(0
/
-2)
What's that got to do with the license? How is the GPLv3 any different from v2 or, say, the MIT License with regard to slop-generated bug reports?
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Then get a Mac Mini, Raspberry Pi, Mini PC, or some other device and use that instead. It's a bit harder to figure out than an Apple TV (and possibly more expensive), but if it can run a standard browser with ad blockers and such, you're good to go.
Upvote
0
(1
/
-1)
carbon60Unit
Ars Centurion
Despite no Ethernet connection and WiFi settings off, my LG got an errant screen share request from a neighbor, so the radio is active despite settings. What else is it up to? Could it be finding a neighbor's TV that is internet connected and relaying through that? How would I ever figure that out? How hard is it to set up a WiFi packet sniffer?
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
carbon60Unit
Ars Centurion
A lot of shows will have text content, often text messages shown and they are hard to read on a small display at a distance, so big displays make sense for readability. Spouse is pretty much bed ridden and watches on her MacBook Air so she can read text. But that content can't be screen shared with the larger TV/AppleTV in the room because of %#@%#$! DRM.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
carbon60Unit
Ars Centurion
I'd like to see a "Raspberry TV", one whose UI, network communications, etc. was handled by a suitable Raspberry Pi like device interfaced to the core of the TV. Having an open environment with suitable APIs to the core TV (even if core functions were performed by proprietary software, possibly running on an inner processor.) The explosion of creativity would be amazing.
Upvote
-1
(0
/
-1)
I don't know. I find the phrases "watching TV" and "explosion of creativity" somewhat at odds with one another.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Late the the party - but my "smart" TV is a 15 year old Sharp - it used to play Netflix, but they abandoned support long ago (even though a potato could decode most modern TV streams).
However, the lack of online connectivity is mostly a feature to me now. I don't see a huge benefit to a high-res screen anyway - most of the streams you can watch are so horribly compressed, they are actually worse than the old analog NTSC standard (we saw this last year when trying to watch the NHL finals online - paid for, even - it was nearly unwatchable).
so, basically, unless my TV physically dies, I have no incentive at all to "upgrade". At best, I can see a few more pixels of content (probably not, given the horribly compressed streams). At worst, it will ask me to sign my first born away so I can be forced to watch ads anyway.
IMO, giving up the analog NTSC broadcast standard was a huge mistake. We gained basically nothing. The modern compressed version is worse much of the time - unless you pay a lot of money, and even when you pay, it's often still worse.
However, the lack of online connectivity is mostly a feature to me now. I don't see a huge benefit to a high-res screen anyway - most of the streams you can watch are so horribly compressed, they are actually worse than the old analog NTSC standard (we saw this last year when trying to watch the NHL finals online - paid for, even - it was nearly unwatchable).
so, basically, unless my TV physically dies, I have no incentive at all to "upgrade". At best, I can see a few more pixels of content (probably not, given the horribly compressed streams). At worst, it will ask me to sign my first born away so I can be forced to watch ads anyway.
IMO, giving up the analog NTSC broadcast standard was a huge mistake. We gained basically nothing. The modern compressed version is worse much of the time - unless you pay a lot of money, and even when you pay, it's often still worse.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
There is no "modern compressed.version of NTSC", and NTSC was horrible, worse even than PAL – especially when it came to colour resolution. The closest modern equivalent is DVB-T, which is H-264 Main Profile packaged in MPEG-TS and is pretty solid for 1080/30p OTA broadcasting.
No Internet streams use that format. The compression artefacts you see are the result of one or all of the following: a) skimping on compression tools (hardware and software), or b) skimping on transmission bandwidth, wich correlates to.the bitrate of the compressed stream, or c) having a low bandwidth internet connection so that you can't even get a decent stream.
So if your NHL finals were unwatchable, take it up with them for trying to save a buck, or with your ISP for overcommitting the bandwidth available on their upstream pipe. I'm told ISPs in the US are notorious for promising huge download speeds that are theoretically achievable only if you're the only user of their network...
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Commercial signage displays (which are essentially just TVs without the fancier features and input options) already do this. Some of them literally use a Raspberry Pi C4 module (upgradeable to a C5) as a network/automation/media playback engine.
Here's a video from Jeff Geerling (fellow Arsian) about it from a few years ago. He goes over some important caveats about this approach for home users (cost, lack of picture enhancing features, etc.).
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)