Is it a violation if they don't modify Linux itself? So if I make a device that runs Linux and my application binary, am I required to make my application code public?
BMW Australia Refusing to Comply with Terms of GNU Public License
21–30 of 229 posts
Re: BMW Australia Refusing to Comply with Terms of GNU Public License
#22What 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...
A little bit of digging shows a 2014 BMW i3 claiming to run 2.6.32-28 in it's licences section.(STLinux)
However on the other hand there are numerous references of it having Tegra in media too...
Re: BMW Australia Refusing to Comply with Terms of GNU Public License
#23What 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...
[deleted]
Re: BMW Australia Refusing to Comply with Terms of GNU Public License
#24Has anyone ever seen GPL being encorced in any country?
Wont this end with BWM uploading a tar.gz of a kernel found on kernel.org and call it a good working day?
Have seen it happen too many times, and in most countries the user has no claim on the license/copyright.
So unless I contributed/own some copyright found in exact Linux kernel version/other software used by a distributor, and buy their stuff, there is zilch I can do.
Which also means, you are free to sell/and break GPL software/license and as long as you dont upset somebody who owns the copyright to it, you're good to go.
Re: BMW Australia Refusing to Comply with Terms of GNU Public License
#25History 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 naming and shaming works miracles. Companies that turned a blind eye and were completely unreachable suddenly turned active and kind just to save their reputation. Going to or even just threatening to go to the media, I know from experience, is indeed productive.
I am really curious where you got the idea that it's counter productive. Asking the conservancy to clean up this dirty work is expensive and takes forever.
Re: BMW Australia Refusing to Comply with Terms of GNU Public License
#26Is it a violation if they don't modify Linux itself? So if I make a device that runs Linux and my application binary, am I required to make my application code public?
In that case, it shouldn't be a problem to point to Linux' code repository right?
Re: BMW Australia Refusing to Comply with Terms of GNU Public License
#27What 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...
[deleted]
The payload can be delivered unencrypted, as long as the public key used to check the authenticity of the payload was provided throught a safe channel.
Re: BMW Australia Refusing to Comply with Terms of GNU Public License
#28Is it a violation if they don't modify Linux itself? So if I make a device that runs Linux and my application binary, am I required to make my application code public?
It would not be a violation in this case.
Re: BMW Australia Refusing to Comply with Terms of GNU Public License
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
Are you confusing source-code with machine-code?
GPL is concerned with source-code.
Re: BMW Australia Refusing to Comply with Terms of GNU Public License
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
evidence that they've modified, not afaict. But refusing to give up the GPL'd code, even if stock, is a violation. And there are no sizes to license violations.