Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

BMW Australia Refusing to Comply with Terms of GNU Public License

gist.github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 229 posts

Re: BMW Australia Refusing to Comply with Terms of GNU Public License

#2

Post by jwildeboer »

History has proven over and over again that this kind of public shame and blame approach doesn't help in any way, quite the opposite.

Hand this over to the Free Software Conservancy or the SFLC. And that should have been the first step.

Now that the bridges are burning, BMW will be far less open to civil discussion and cooperative solutions. Well done. #sarcasm

Re: BMW Australia Refusing to Comply with Terms of GNU Public License

#3

Post by coldpie »

jwildeboer wrote: post #2

History has proven over and over again that this kind of public shame and blame approach doesn't help in any way, quite the opposite. Hand this over to the Free Software Conservancy or the SFLC. And that should have been the first step. Now that the bridges are burning, BMW will be far less open to civil discussion and cooperative solutions. Well done. #sarcasm

Yeah, it's pretty clear the suit has no idea what they're talking about. I don't know if SFC operates in Australia, but probably they could get some attention from the US division of BMW.

Speaking of which, the SFC is currently running a fundraiser. If GPL enforcement is important to you, please consider signing up for a recurring donation. http://sfconservancy.org/

Re: BMW Australia Refusing to Comply with Terms of GNU Public License

#4

Post by dmm »

What GPL licensed software are they actually infringing upon? The linked post[1] says they found mentions of systemd, but does the firmware actually contain a linux kernel? I don't see anything that looks like a kernel in the file listing.

Also if the firmware is properly signed delivering it over http shouldn't matter, right?

[1] https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2016/02/bmw-are-sending-their-softw...

Re: BMW Australia Refusing to Comply with Terms of GNU Public License

#5

Post by matt4077 »

jwildeboer wrote: post #2

History has proven over and over again that this kind of public shame and blame approach doesn't help in any way, quite the opposite. Hand this over to the Free Software Conservancy or the SFLC. And that should have been the first step. Now that the bridges are burning, BMW will be far less open to civil discussion and cooperative solutions. Well done. #sarcasm

I think that argument may have used to make sense in the 90ies when open source was new and was trying to establish itself, mostly with a dream of "Linux on every desktop".

Now it has found its market and the ecosystem as a whole really couldn't give a damn if BMW is kind enough to use OSS or not.

Re: BMW Australia Refusing to Comply with Terms of GNU Public License

#7

Post by jackhack »

matt4077 wrote: post #5
jwildeboer wrote: post #2

History has proven over and over again that this kind of public shame and blame approach doesn't help in any way, quite the opposite. Hand this over to the Free Software Conservancy or the SFLC. And that should have been the first step. Now that the bridges are burning, BMW will be far less open to civil discussion and cooperative solutions. Well done. #sarcasm

I think that argument may have used to make sense in the 90ies when open source was new and was trying to establish itself, mostly with a dream of "Linux on every desktop". Now it has found its market and the ecosystem as a whole really couldn't give a damn if BMW is kind enough to use OSS or not.

Respectfully, I don't think this is about 'kindness.' This is about BMW, a commercial entity, respecting the legal rights of the property creators as owners. The license agreement is clear, and certain actions must take place if BMW chooses to benefit from use of the software. BMW is free to NOT use the software if they feel these restrictions are too severe.

Or am I missing something?

Re: BMW Australia Refusing to Comply with Terms of GNU Public License

#8

Post by noselasd »

dmm wrote: post #4

What GPL licensed software are they actually infringing upon? The linked post[1] says they found mentions of systemd, but does the firmware actually contain a linux kernel? I don't see anything that looks like a kernel in the file listing. Also if the firmware is properly signed delivering it over http shouldn't matter, right? [1] https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2016/02/bmw-are-sending-their-softw...

The specific update here is just a delta update, and doesn't contain the entire firmware. But it does contain shared libraries built for running on a linux system, so it stands to reason there's linux kernel running somewhere there.

(On that note - have someone sent a similar request to Tesla - they've at least semi-officially said they're running Linux)

Re: BMW Australia Refusing to Comply with Terms of GNU Public License

#9

Post by semi-extrinsic »

jackhack wrote: post #7
matt4077 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that argument may have used to make sense in the 90ies when open source was new and was trying to establish itself, mostly with a dream of "Linux on every desktop". Now it has found its market and the ecosystem as a whole really couldn't give a damn if BMW is kind enough to use OSS or not.

Respectfully, I don't think this is about 'kindness.' This is about BMW, a commercial entity, respecting the legal rights of the property creators as owners. The license agreement is clear, and certain actions must take place if BMW chooses to benefit from use of the software. BMW is free to NOT use the software if they feel these restrictions are too severe. Or am I missing something?

I think they were trying to say that the OSS community at this point in time doesn't need BMW to be "kind" and use OSS to help OSS gain popularity. Especially not if they can't be bothered to comply with licenses.
Post reply on HN