141–150 of 229 posts
So it is strange for me even if I understand GPL. Does it means all the network routers running custom linux have to provide sources of entire modification? I assume if we want companies to make use of linux on a wide level, there should be the ways to overcome this problem(if exists).
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…
It seems to me that they're not distributing any software (i.e., the product is a car, not software), which means licensing doesn't come into play. It would be akin to someone finding out that I'm privately using (and maybe modifying) GPL software, and then demand that I make the source code available to them. Only in GPLv3, the issue of selling a product that uses GPL software internally is addressed. The situation…
The car is running software. They're distributing the car, therefore they're distributing software.
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 machin…
That's very interesting wording that I wasn't aware of. It still seems to me like it is a reasonable interpretation that only the customer could request it (the "offer" is to the customer, the distribution is to the third party). So, having bought the car, I could say "Please send the source code to my friend Fred". However my understanding is that the long held general interpretation of the GPL has always been that you only get standing to request the source code if you actually received the GPL code yourself.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It is in fact in the letter of the GPL: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#SourceInCVS The actual relevant text of GPLv3 is in section 6d: 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 Sour…
Either way, if people are genuinely concerned and want a specific version of the source code for their car, it seems Daniel Wagner is a contact at BMW to ask. There's an email address in the git repository commits.
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 machin…
I disagree. BMW currently offers the source code as a download on their website if a customer provides his 7-digit VIN, so this is them fulfilling the requirement that they must "accompany [the car] with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code". It is all in the meaning of "accompany it": giving the source code physically along with the keys when you purchase the car, or offering a source code download link. I would argue that either option is compliant with the GPL, so to me it seems BMW is in the right.
Edit: s/IBM/BMW/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 machin…
"They are not distributing the source code with their cars, so option "a" is out" I disagree. BMW currently offers the source code as a download on their website if a customer provides his 7-digit VIN, so this is them fulfilling the requirement that they must "accompany [the car] with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code". It is all in the meaning of "accompany it": giving the source code physicall…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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:
Your quoted section only speaks of unmodified machine-code created from GPLed source-code.
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
Yeah, it's pretty clear the suit has no idea what they're talking about. I don't know if SFC operates in Australia, but probably they could get some attention from the US division of BMW. Speaking of which, the SFC is currently running a fundraiser. If GPL enforcement is important to you, please consider signing up for a recurring donation. http://sfconservancy.org/
For full disclosure, I am one of the ZoL developers. I believe that ZoL can prevent certain types of storage related failures that other production solutions do not, including those on systems intended to keep people alive. My desire to see that has required that I make an effort to understand what the GPL permits and what it restricts. So far, my talks with lawyers have suggested that my (and others') work in ZoL is legally alright under copyright law.
The SFC considers easy access to ZoL binaries to complicate their arguments in certain GPL enforcement cases and rather than accept that reality to the benefit of the wider community, the SFC has opted to claim that ZoL binaries as distributed by Canonical are themselves a GPL violation. While I want to see the BMW case litigated, wanting to see GPL violations litigated and contributing to an organization that calls any use of OSS a GPL violation whenever it perceives the possibility of a court agreeing that claim to make litigation of certain cases of actual violations slightly easier are two different things.