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

121–130 of 229 posts

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

#121

Post by goerz »

goerz wrote: post #116
ceejayoz wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that were the case, you could get around the GPL by claiming to sell CDs, thumbdrives, or zip files. Including software in your hardware product is undeniably distributing that software, IMO.

I disagree. If you sell me a CD with software on it, I have the software. If you sell me a car that runs a software internally, I have a car, but not the software. The car, unlike the CD, is not a container for the software. In fact, there is no trivial or intended way to get the software out of the car. As I said, GPLv3 addresses this explicitly, but with GPLv2 the license just doesn't apply. Then again, lots of peo…

Incidentally, if you send me a USB stick with some GPL software on it, I can demand that you give me the source code of that software. However, I can not demand that you also give me the source code for the firmware of the USB stick, even if the source code for that firmware is under GPL (v2)

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

#122

Post by DannyBee »

greydius wrote: post #80

Please correct me if I'm wrong. I thought the GPL only required providing the source code to the purchasers of the product. (Who can then redestribute it if they'd like.) I didn't think it meant that if you use GPL code in your product, then you are obligated to make your code available to everyone.

So, as two people said, you have to give source to who you give binaries to.

But it's stronger than that. You either have to ship them source accompanying the binary, put the source next to a place that has the binaries, or make a written offer.

Since they haven't done #1, they probably have to make a written offer. I don't see one :)

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

#123

Post by gknoy »

DannyBee wrote: post #118
SyneRyder wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think BMW would argue that contributing their modifications directly to the ConnMan Git repository for others to use would suffice. You can find a list of BMW's commits to the ConnMan project here (Daniel Wagner seems to be the main developer from BMW Car IT working on it): http://git.kernel.org/cgit/network/connman/connman.git/log/?...

BMW would be wrong to argue that. They are required to provide corresponding source code, which means the exact version they put in the cars, with any patch files and build scripts needed to build it. They can't just link to the general project site

In the era of distributed source control, it seems reasonable to me if "provide" meant, "link to a repo with our changes". I can see why that's not in the letter of the GPL (e.g., what if github ceases to exist ten years from now, and you want to tinker on your car), but for now it seems reasonable.

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

#124

Post by genericacct »

Frankly: given recent news (hacked jeeps, software used to cheat on emission tests) I think it is time to _require_ _all_ software used on vehicles that transit on public roads to be open sourced and available to the public. (for independent testing and verification in the name of public safety)

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

#125

Post by ratboy666 »

zmmmmm wrote: post #119

To me this doesn't really look like a clear cut case. Does he own one of these cars? If not, then I think it is very dubious whether he has any standing to request the source code. If he does then included with the car should be an offer for how to access the GPL source code. He should have followed that (or clearly stated that he could not locate it in his email). The requirement for him to enter the VIN to access t…

No, the offer for source must be to anyone -- the supply of a binary may be limited. BMW cannot be the "sole owner" of the copyright -- even if they own the part they wrote, they must still supply source for the GPL parts.

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

#126

Post by [deleted] »

zmmmmm wrote: post #119

To me this doesn't really look like a clear cut case. Does he own one of these cars? If not, then I think it is very dubious whether he has any standing to request the source code. If he does then included with the car should be an offer for how to access the GPL source code. He should have followed that (or clearly stated that he could not locate it in his email). The requirement for him to enter the VIN to access t…

[deleted]

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

#127

Post by [deleted] »

ratboy666 wrote: post #125
zmmmmm wrote: post #119

To me this doesn't really look like a clear cut case. Does he own one of these cars? If not, then I think it is very dubious whether he has any standing to request the source code. If he does then included with the car should be an offer for how to access the GPL source code. He should have followed that (or clearly stated that he could not locate it in his email). The requirement for him to enter the VIN to access t…

No, the offer for source must be to anyone -- the supply of a binary may be limited. BMW cannot be the "sole owner" of the copyright -- even if they own the part they wrote, they must still supply source for the GPL parts.

[deleted]

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

#128

Post by st3v3r »

13of40 wrote: post #96
voxic11 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are required to distribute the source code to anyone you distribute binaries to. So if for instance their binaries were available to the public then they would also have to make their source code available to the public. It seems in this case they released a patch to their software and made the patch available to the public.

If I sell a computer with Linux on it, and I bundle on my own application that's compiled to run on Linux, am I required to make the source code for that application available? In this case, if they just have an unmodified copy of Linux to provide the run-time environment for their nav system or whatever, and the nav system itself is an application on top of it, I don't know if it follows that they need to release th…

"If I sell a computer with Linux on it, and I bundle on my own application that's compiled to run on Linux, am I required to make the source code for that application available?"

Are you using GPL code in your application? If so, then yes.

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

#129

Post by tzs »

zmmmmm wrote: post #119

To me this doesn't really look like a clear cut case. Does he own one of these cars? If not, then I think it is very dubious whether he has any standing to request the source code. If he does then included with the car should be an offer for how to access the GPL source code. He should have followed that (or clearly stated that he could not locate it in his email). The requirement for him to enter the VIN to access t…

> To me this doesn't really look like a clear cut case. Does he own one of these cars? If not, then I think it is very dubious whether he has any standing to request the source code.

(All section references below are to GPLv2, since that is what the Linux kernel uses)

Section 3 governs distribution of object or executable code. Section 3 gives these requirements:

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.)

BMW is distributing commercially and they did not receive the program in object or executable form, so option "c" is out.

They are not distributing the source code with their cars, so option "a" is out.

That leaves option "b", which requires them to give the code to any third party that requests it, at no more than their cost of performing a source distribution.

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

#130

Post by ArbitraryHobo »

bcook wrote: post #29
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?

Are you confusing source-code with machine-code? GPL is concerned with source-code.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html

> object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

Post reply on HN