LICENSEWARE
Contribute

Software Freedom Conservancy v. Best Buy

From the LICENSEWARE WikiLast edited 5 ReferencesCited

This article is about the 2009 to 2012 BusyBox GPL enforcement case brought against Best Buy and thirteen other consumer electronics companies. For the later Vizio case, see Software Freedom Conservancy v. Vizio. It is not legal advice.

On This Page

Software Freedom Conservancy v. Best Buy was a copyright case in the Southern District of New York brought in December 2009 by the Software Freedom Conservancy and Erik Andersen, a developer of the BusyBox utilities, against fourteen consumer electronics manufacturers and retailers. The plaintiffs alleged that each defendant distributed BusyBox in device firmware without complying with version 2 of the GNU General Public License (GPLv2).[1] The court entered a default judgment against Westinghouse Digital Electronics in 2010, and the claims against the other defendants were dismissed during 2010 to 2012.[2][3]

Background

BusyBox is a collection of command-line utilities licensed under GPLv2. The court found, on the plaintiffs’ undisputed submissions, that Andersen developed code in 1999 and contributed it to BusyBox, that he permits copying, modification and redistribution only under GPLv2, and that in October 2008 he registered a copyright in his code in BusyBox version 0.60.3, first published in 2002.[2]

The complaint quoted the GPLv2 conditions on distribution in object code form (accompanying source code or a written offer for it) and section 4, under which any attempt to copy, modify or distribute the program otherwise “is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License”. It alleged that each defendant lost its right to distribute BusyBox once it made a non-compliant distribution.[1]

The dispute

The defendants were Best Buy, Samsung Electronics America, Westinghouse Digital Electronics, JVC Americas, Western Digital Technologies, Robert Bosch, Phoebe Micro, Humax USA, Comtrend, Dobbs-Stanford, Versa Technology, ZyXEL Communications, Astak and GCI Technologies. The complaint listed the products whose firmware allegedly contained BusyBox, including Best Buy’s Insignia Blu-ray Disc player, Samsung and Westinghouse LCD televisions, a Western Digital media player and wireless routers, and alleged that the plaintiffs had notified each defendant before suing.[1]

The court referred the case to a magistrate judge for settlement, and the docket records stipulations extending deadlines while several defendants and the plaintiffs were in settlement negotiations, followed by dismissals of those defendants.[3]

Decision or outcome

Westinghouse answered the complaint but then stopped complying with its discovery obligations, and its lawyers withdrew after the company entered a general assignment for the benefit of creditors under California law. On 2010-07-27 Judge Shira A. Scheindlin granted a default judgment. Accepting the plaintiffs’ allegations as true, the court held that Westinghouse infringed by distributing BusyBox in the firmware of its HDTVs and in software for them without complying with the licence, and permanently enjoined it. Because Westinghouse had continued distributing after being notified, the court found the infringement wilful, awarded the maximum ordinary statutory damages of USD 30,000 for the single work and trebled them to USD 90,000, awarded attorneys’ fees, and ordered Westinghouse to deliver the infringing HDTVs in its possession to the plaintiffs so that they could be donated to charity.[2] A further order of 2010-08-02 fixed fees and costs at USD 47,685.[3]

The claims against Best Buy were dismissed with prejudice by a stipulation so-ordered on 2011-06-14.[4] Most other defendants, including Samsung, JVC, Western Digital, Bosch, Humax, Comtrend and ZyXEL, were dismissed by stipulation or voluntary notice, and appeals to the Second Circuit by the plaintiffs and by Westinghouse Digital, LLC were withdrawn.[3] The last remaining defendant, Phoebe Micro, was dismissed without prejudice by stipulation on 2012-09-21, and the court directed the Clerk to close the case.[5] The terms of any settlements were not filed.

Significance for software licensing and SAM practice

The case is one of the early United States decisions applying copyright remedies to a failure to meet GPL conditions, although the judgment against Westinghouse was entered by default rather than after a contested hearing.[2] It was brought against companies that sold finished consumer devices, including a retailer selling products under its own brand, rather than against the developers of the firmware.[1] Later BusyBox and GPL disputes are covered in Software Freedom Conservancy v. Vizio and Hellwig v. VMware.

Lessons learned

  • Distributors are in scope. Best Buy was sued over firmware in a Blu-ray player sold under its Insignia brand.[1] Supply contracts for devices should require the supplier to deliver the source code and notices needed for GPL compliance.
  • Termination matters. The plaintiffs relied on GPLv2 section 4 to argue that every distribution after the first non-compliant one was unlicensed.[1] Fix compliance gaps before shipping further units, not after.
  • Do not ignore the claim. Westinghouse’s default led to wilfulness findings, enhanced statutory damages, fees, an injunction and forfeiture of stock.[2]

References

  1. Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. v. Best Buy Co., Inc., No. 1:09-cv-10155, complaint (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2009), Dkt. 1Plaintiffs' allegations; public copy from the RECAP archiveEffective 2009-12-14. Retrieved 2026-10-02.
  2. Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. v. Best Buy Co., Inc., No. 09 Civ. 10155 (SAS), opinion and order (S.D.N.Y. July 27, 2010), Dkt. 131Default judgment against Westinghouse Digital Electronics, LLC; scanned copyEffective 2010-07-27. Retrieved 2026-10-02.
  3. Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. v. Best Buy Co., Inc., No. 1:09-cv-10155 (S.D.N.Y.), docketPACER-derived docket, including the fee order (Dkt. 132), the dismissals and the Second Circuit mandatesRetrieved 2026-10-02.
  4. Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. v. Best Buy Co., Inc., No. 1:09-cv-10155, stipulation and order of voluntary dismissal as to Best Buy (S.D.N.Y. June 14, 2011), Dkt. 204Effective 2011-06-14. Retrieved 2026-10-02.
  5. Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. v. Phoebe Micro, Inc., No. 1:09-cv-10155-SAS, stipulation of dismissal (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2012), Dkt. 241Endorsed with a direction to the Clerk to close the caseEffective 2012-09-21. Retrieved 2026-10-02.

See also

Esc