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

61–70 of 229 posts

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

#61

Post by lucb1e »

leereeves wrote: post #34
lucb1e wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The customer service rep might be spreading misinformation, true, but without attention or legal actions, odds are high we'd never know. Better put some pressure on them to actually give a true answer than assume they violate the license and quietly let them continue.

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

#62

Post by icebraining »

iajrz wrote: post #40
eggy wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can never change the license of a work, you can only distribute your own changes under a difference license.

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

#63

Post by mh8h »

a3n wrote: post #37
strictnein wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you need to link your code against some GPL code, then your code is GPL. But in most cases, a program that runs in a Linux environment doesn't need to link against any GPL libraries.

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

#64

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

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?

A very important part of the obligations under the GPL is to make the recipient aware that they have a right to the source code and that they are allowed to modify it and redistribute it, whether you have modified it or not.

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

#65

Post by SyneRyder »

rattray wrote: post #50

Worth noting that the BMW people in the thread are in customer support, not legal.

Looking through the user's Github account, they have a history of contacting customer support representatives of companies and threatening to post the transcripts to Hacker News if their specific legal concerns are not addressed:

https://gist.github.com/duncan-bayne/74d6e38c506000982237

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

#66

Post by icebraining »

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…

The GPL is essentially pay-it-forward; any rights you receive must be passed along to anyone who gets a copy of the work (or of a derivative).

That means it's perfectly fine to take a GPL work and modify it without giving the source to anyone, as long as you also don't give binaries to anyone. And if you're distributing binaries privately with just a few people/companies, you also don't need to publish the source publicly, only to those few who got the binaries.

EDIT: Of course, you can't prevent those few from redistributing it publicly themselves.

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

#68

Post by daveloyall »

[deleted] wrote: post #23
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...

[deleted]

> You can also modify the checksum to match the payload.

FTFY. :)

I don't know yet if these files are signed or even checksum'd. If I get to the bottom of this discussion without finding that someone has downloaded the .bin and checked, I'll hang my head and get back to the day job.

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

#69

Post by icebraining »

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…

If you are talking in practice - can someone sue BMW and force them to release the modified versions - I think you're right, but one can still get an injunction preventing them from distributing any more copies of the work. Which means no more cars with that firmware; not a happy prospect for BMW!

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

#70

Post by darkr »

luso_brazilian wrote: post #41
antocv wrote: post #24

Has 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…

Yes, and actually on BMW home country, Germany. The summary can be read at this old Slashdot submission [1] from 2005 but the gist of it is that > Harald Welte of the netfilter/iptables core team sought to enjoin Sitecom from distributing its WL-122 router, which used netfilter's GPL'd code, without also providing the source code and a copy of the GPL, as that license requires and > The Munich Court granted Welte a p…

Yup, I can remember several companies settling and being forced to comply for violations of busybox GPL'd code in the US off the top of my head - Verizon, Extreme Networks and Xterasys. There are likely quite a few other examples of GPL being successfully enforced.
Post reply on HN