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

11–20 of 229 posts

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

#11

Post by lucaspiller »

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...

Apparently Mini (also made by BMW) has a similar update structure, and that runs QNX, so it's likely this does too:

http://rene.rebe.de/2013-03-31/mini-connected-runs-qnx/

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

#12

Post by cnvogel »

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 don't see any shame and blame yet. The only thing these emails show is the claim by BMW that no software not developed or fully owned by BMW is running on their cars infotainment system.

A shame and blame game would start when one analyzes the software updates, is able to prove that the above statement is a lie, and make a big fuzz about it. This would BMW fear loosing their face and be counter productive, I fully agree.

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

#13

Post by pigpaws »

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?

the way I read its is that no, BMW is NOT legally required to release it as it is in a proprietary piece of HW, and releasing the code could thus cause harm to their business. and while they ARE using it for 'gain', no one can prove that they were HARMED or had a loss of income or even IP (outside of copyright) by their (BMW's) use of such as it is essentially 'free' in that no money or barter items were exchanged. They MAY have a copyright claim at best, but again, I am not a lawyer. That's just how I see it.

Is there a precedent to enforce GNU licensing outside of copyright infringement?

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

#14

Post by jMyles »

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

> 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.

Is this true?

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

#16

Post by nailer »

strictnein wrote: post #15

I'm confused here. Where is the evidence that they've modified GPL'd software, which they are then distributing, and are refusing to distribute the source code for their modifications?

> Where is the evidence that they've modified GPL'd software

There's a Linux kernel and systemd in the 'i3'. See the links in the first few sentences of the article.

> which they are then distributing

BMW is a Bayerische Motor Work, a car company that distributes cars

> and are refusing to distribute the source code for their modifications?

The letters from BMW to the people asking for a copy of the source, stating they are refusing to distribute the source code for their modifications, linked to in the article.

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

#17

Post by strictnein »

nailer wrote: post #16
strictnein wrote: post #15

I'm confused here. Where is the evidence that they've modified GPL'd software, which they are then distributing, and are refusing to distribute the source code for their modifications?

> Where is the evidence that they've modified GPL'd software There's a Linux kernel and systemd in the 'i3'. See the links in the first few sentences of the article. > which they are then distributing BMW is a Bayerische Motor Work, a car company that distributes cars > and are refusing to distribute the source code for their modifications? The letters from BMW to the people asking for a copy of the source, stating t…

I read that, but isn't this is the lowest type of "violation" there is? People are just wanting them to host the source code that is already available in about a billion locations then?

My question still stands, is there evidence that they're modifying GPL'd code and then not distributing that code?

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

#18

Post by witten »

pigpaws wrote: post #13
jackhack wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

the way I read its is that no, BMW is NOT legally required to release it as it is in a proprietary piece of HW, and releasing the code could thus cause harm to their business. and while they ARE using it for 'gain', no one can prove that they were HARMED or had a loss of income or even IP (outside of copyright) by their (BMW's) use of such as it is essentially 'free' in that no money or barter items were exchanged. T…

That's not how the GPL works. If it would be inconvenient for BMW to incorporate GPL software and properly comply with the license by providing source, then their only alternative is not to incorporate the GPL software. Full stop. Harm or proprietary hardware has no bearing on the rights granted by the GPL.

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

#19

Post by cookiecaper »

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 disagree. The fact is that large companies like this are never open to "civil discourse and cooperative solutions" when it comes to copyright, trademark, or other intellectual property matters. BMW will see no reason to comply with the GPL. The only thing a big company responds to on such issues, other than bona fide legal action, is negative press. I think it'll be difficult to manufacture some over the technicalities of copyright compliance, but can't blame OP for trying and not wasting his time trying to navigate the corporate copyright labyrinth.

Source: I have a C&D from a Fortune 500 alleging that I violated some intangible rights. Their argument is weak, but I don't have the millions of dollars every lawyer I've talked to has said I'll need to see the case through (tens of thousands to even get started). I've spent 6 months trying to navigate their corporate structure and get in front of someone who matters. Everyone just tells me to sod off, with varying degrees of politeness. I have not yet been able to locate someone in the company who actually seems willing to have any discussion, and their law firm is obviously not open to this since their instructions were to shut me down. I'm considering the alternatives I have, and wondering if it's time to try to work the media and attempt to get some movement from them that way (though I don't really think this will work, it's becoming the only option).

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

#20

Post by eggy »

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 don't really look at GPL too closely, since I do not code for a living, or make commercial products, but I have to say my superficial understanding of opensource and GPL was piqued by the statement from @jackhat above with the 'legal rights of the property creators as owners.' If I take this statement to mean that GPL is the mirror-image of proprietary license agreements in that it is not free to use, since the stipulation is that you must publish your source code as the cost, would my understanding be correct? I just tend towards MIT or BSD licensed software to avoid any potential issues or problems with my future endeavors.
Post reply on HN