BMW Australia Refusing to Comply with Terms of GNU Public License

Post by qznc » Thu, Mar 03, 2016, 5:26 PM UTC

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.

Post by jordigh » Thu, Mar 03, 2016, 5:27 PM UTC

gknoy wrote: post #123

DannyBee wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

    d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated
    place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the
    Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no
    further charge.  You need not require recipients to copy the
    Corresponding Source along with the object code.  If the place to
    copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source
    may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party)
    that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain
    clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the
    Corresponding Source.  Regardless of what server hosts the
    Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is
    available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements.

    If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
    access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
    access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
    distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not
    compelled to copy the source along with the object code.

Post by lmm » Thu, Mar 03, 2016, 5:30 PM UTC

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…

Post by Deregibus » Thu, Mar 03, 2016, 5:32 PM UTC

qznc wrote: post #131

ratboy666 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users " Source: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLRequireSourc... BMW does not have to provide the sources to everybody. Only to its users. edit: tzs also has a point. Hm?

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Mar 03, 2016, 5:37 PM UTC

nordsieck wrote: post #95

xvedejas wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, two things: first, they have to provide source to everyone (regardless of whether they bought the product or not) if they are releasing the product at all. Secondly, if they are statically linking with GPL-licensed code, or otherwise make modifications to the code, the additional code must also be released under the same license, and the code for that must therefore also be made available.

"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) Acc…