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

31–40 of 229 posts

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

#31

Post by ocschwar »

lucb1e wrote: post #26
sudhirj wrote: post #21

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?

In that case, it shouldn't be a problem to point to Linux' code repository right?

And it won't be. But cut their public relations staff some slack. They can't tell Richard Stallman from Gregory Rasputin, and before saying or doing anything they're going to be bringing themselves up to speed on what the GPL is. No need to get rage-y just yet.

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

#32

Post by iajrz »

pyb wrote: post #28
sudhirj wrote: post #21

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?

It would not be a violation in this case.

It is if they don't redist the kernel code they're using - if it's GPL'd, and you redistribute the binaries, you acquire the responsibility to redist the source.

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

#33

Post by thom_nic »

strictnein wrote: post #17
nailer wrote: post #16

Earlier 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?

I think if they're running unmodified code, they could just say "we are running X version Y with no modifications" and link to the upstream and be done with it. Which could be the case.

Or they have modified it and are refusing to release the source with their modifications. But they haven't stated the former.

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

#34

Post by leereeves »

lucb1e wrote: post #25
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 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…

Sometimes shaming works, sometimes it doesn't, and sometimes the mob is misinformed and crucifies an innocent.

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

#35

Post by cjbprime »

sudhirj wrote: post #21

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?

Yes, it actually is. People saying it isn't haven't read the license. :)

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

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

#36

Post by lucb1e »

strictnein wrote: post #17
nailer wrote: post #16

Earlier 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?

If not, I'm not certain that waivers their obligation to distribute the source code, at least when requested. In which case they could just link to Linux' own website.

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

#37

Post by a3n »

strictnein wrote: post #17
nailer wrote: post #16

Earlier 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?

If I understand correctly, all you have to do is add gplCode + yourCode, no modification to gplCode, and that obligates you to a) distribute your source, and b) license your source as gpl.

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

#39

Post by sseveran »

witten wrote: post #18
pigpaws wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is true in the real world if and only if there is someone willing to sue BMW and see it through to the end. Absent someone doing that I don't see how the GPL is actually enforceable. In some ways it is similar to what we have with surveillance and the NSA in US. While they are probably breaking the law the courts have been unwilling to force them to stop.

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

#40

Post by iajrz »

eggy wrote: post #20
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?

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 sti…

Using GPL'd source as the basis of your work (this is, creating a derivate of a work licensed under the GPL), and then distributing that modified work, saddles the author with the responsibility of handing over the code upon user request. The GPL also prevents changing the license if you're not the original author.
Post reply on HN