SFC is trying out a new legal theory [1] that they hope will make GPL enforcement easier: rather than copyright holders suing for copyright license violation, having consumers sue based on contract law.
It's been well-established that the copyright holders can sue Visio for violating their license. But it's actually often difficult to get the copyright holders to do any suing -- the cost/benefit for most developers just isn't worth it; many developers are actually strongly opposed to doing so.
Consumers have much more "skin in the game". Khun has developed a legal theory that he thinks should give consumers standing to sue (something about GPL also being a contract, and consumers being a beneficiary of the contract, if I understand correctly). That's why SFC is suing, without any copyright holders.
If they won this case under that theory, it would mean SFC could go after any GPL copyright violators on their own, without having to try to track down a copyright holder and convince them to get involved.
But from that perspective, it looks to me (admittedly as a layperson) like they screwed up: they won the right to the source code based not on the license by itself, but based on the fact that some menu somewhere said they could have it. And, their initial arguments based on the GPL were missing something, and they're not allowed to amend the motion for summary judgment. And, now that they've gotten the source code based on the menu, I'm not sure they can continue the lawsuit (since there's no point, they've already gotten what they want). So while they may have gained experience refining their legal technique (by failure), they haven't yet proven that the new legal theory works.
It would also mean that any GPL code recipient could sue for compliance, and since Conservancy is a small underfunded org, that is a huge win since it means others could do that work too.
It's been well-established that the copyright holders can sue Visio for violating their license. But it's actually often difficult to get the copyright holders to do any suing -- the cost/benefit for most developers just isn't worth it; many developers are actually strongly opposed to doing so.
Consumers have much more "skin in the game". Khun has developed a legal theory that he thinks should give consumers standing to sue (something about GPL also being a contract, and consumers being a beneficiary of the contract, if I understand correctly). That's why SFC is suing, without any copyright holders.
If they won this case under that theory, it would mean SFC could go after any GPL copyright violators on their own, without having to try to track down a copyright holder and convince them to get involved.
But from that perspective, it looks to me (admittedly as a layperson) like they screwed up: they won the right to the source code based not on the license by itself, but based on the fact that some menu somewhere said they could have it. And, their initial arguments based on the GPL were missing something, and they're not allowed to amend the motion for summary judgment. And, now that they've gotten the source code based on the menu, I'm not sure they can continue the lawsuit (since there's no point, they've already gotten what they want). So while they may have gained experience refining their legal technique (by failure), they haven't yet proven that the new legal theory works.
[1] https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2022/may/11/vizio-update-1/