Entities refusing to distribute copyleft licensed software under license terms

❗Article Status Notice: This Article is a stub

---

This article is underdeveloped, and needs additional work to meet the wiki's Content Guidelines and be in line with our Mission Statement for comprehensive coverage of consumer protection issues. Learn more ▼

Issues may include:

• This article needs to be expanded to provide meaningful information
• This article requires additional verifiable evidence to demonstrate systemic impact
• More documentation is needed to establish how this reflects broader consumer protection concerns
• The connection between individual incidents and company-wide practices needs to be better established
• The article is simply too short, and lacks sufficient content

How you can help:

• Add documented examples with verifiable sources
• Provide evidence of similar incidents affecting other consumers
• Include relevant company policies or communications that demonstrate systemic practices
• Link to credible reporting that covers these issues
• Flesh out the article with relevant information

This notice will be removed once the article is sufficiently developed. Once you believe the article is ready to have its notice removed, please visit the Moderator's noticeboard, or the Discord (join here) and post to the #appeals channel, or mention its status on the article's talk page.

Many open-source software licenses require you to license your modified copies under the same license, thus maintaining the freedom of the end-user and preventing use of the source code without any contribution. However, this practice is rarely enforced and some companies actively refuse to distribute source code in flagrant violation of the law.

A company may refuse to comply with a copyleft license to reduce user freedom regarding it's product, locking the end-user inside an ecosystem that only works with that company's product or products from it's partners.

Licenses Examples

Permissive Licenses

One may confuse permissive licenses with copyleft licenses, however, permissive licensed software do not require distribution of source code upon modification, this means that if a company is redistributing a modified version of open-source software that's under a permissive license, you may request for their source code.

Copyleft Licenses

Copyleft licenses require the modified code to be distributed under the same license as the original. It does not matter if it is from the original vendor or from a distributor. Examples of such licenses include:

• GPL v2 and GPL v3
• MPL

Enforcement and Precedents

The Software Freedom Conservancy is a nonprofit organization in order to combat this issue. However, in practice, they usually have long lead times and encourage the user to file a suit instead. Below are listed some precedent cases of enforcement of software licenses:

SFC and Vizio's SmartCast TVs

After the company Vizio failed to comply with the requirements of GPL v2 and LGPL in it's television software, SFC has filled a lawsuit against the company. Even though SFC is not the copyright holder of the used code, it's claiming to be third-party beneficiary of the said code, and if the judge decides that this is a valid claim, the case would set precedent for more rigid enforcement of open-source software licenses.

Examples

Linux Kernel

Linux is licensed under GPL-2.0-only. Refusing to provide the Linux kernel source code under it's original license is not allowed and limits the end-user's usage of a device, for example, customers may not be able to build custom operating systems like LineageOS or postmarketOS for their phones as the result of this.

Alarm.com

Alarm.com is a Software as a Service company. They collaborate with multiple hardware vendors to get their security software running on their devices, which primarily run Android. In relation to Qolsys's experience, they actively refused to provide the Linux kernel source code. They also do not have a webpage showcasing where to download source code.

AVM

AVM is a German company that produces routers and smart home devices. While they disclosed their modified Linux Kernel source code, key build scripts were missing. It was only after they were sued by a software developer that they released them.

Cricket

Cricket is a mobile network carrier that also sells Android phones. As they are a distributor of Android phones, which run Linux, they are required by law to distribute the source code to customers who ask for it. However, in practice, customers are actively turned away by customer support. They also do not have a webpage showcasing where to download source code.

Qolsys

Most of Qolsys's products run Android, however when asking customer support for the source code for the IQ Panel 4, they actively refused to provide it. When pressed they will ignore you. They also do not have a webpage showcasing where to download source code.

Xiaomi

Xiaomi's devices are running Android, which is built on top of the Linux kernel. Xiaomi does release the kernel sources for many of their devices in their GitHub repository, but not for all.

The kernel sources for some Xiaomi devices are unavailable, they include:

• Redmi Note 13 4G/NFC
• Redmi 13C 4G
• Poco M5

This, along with Xiaomi Phone unlock requirements and procedure prevents custom ROMs from being made for these devices.