31–40 of 73 posts
Since we are on the topic: I wish Tesla would finally live up to their obligations and release the GPLed parts of their product (that includes, at a minimum, the Linux kernel with all modifications).
Are we sure they aren't complying with the GPL? After all, it only requires distribution of source to those who receive the compiled code. Which is to say, unless you have a Tesla in your garage, you have no claim to the source.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If it's curiosity, well, I wish we weren't enforcing that with the GPL. It's simple, either you comply with the GPL or you don't distribute GPL-based code. As an author of GPL licensed software, I think it's pretty damned arrogant for someone like you to imply curiosity isn't a good enough reason to get back modifications in accordance with the chosen license. Who are you to judge? And anyway, what reason could pos…
Because "for curiosity" isn't a term stated in any GPL license. You can be offended as much as you want for them not releasing it but unless you own a Tesla they don't have to share their modifications with you. If you are unhappy with that, I suggest sharing your work under a different license.
And while I do not have standing to request GPL licensed code from Tesla, they have a legal obligation to either distribute that code directly, or a provide a transferable offer to distribute that code, to their customers. Code properly distributed as such inevitably would make it back out into the wider open source community; this is the design of the GPL. If Tesla currently does not meet this obligation under the GPL, that is a problem.
This sounded awesome right up to the point that they said that this was a hotly pursued space due to advertising potential to a captive audience. If I am in my own car and my music is interrupted with an ad every time I drive by a McDonalds - I would find that extremely annoying. On the other hand, if you could lease a car at a subsidized price in exchange for ads, that might be an attractive offer to some.
http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/08/would_yo...
Nice, I like the forward thinking by ford on this. I only wish next they open up the engine controller, and let the real hackers in!
Serious hackers would of course be very interested, but allowing the general public to cause thousands of dollars in damage to their engine with a few keystrokes seems like a setup for a PR nightmare. Also, I mentioned the regulations- I doubt the EPA and CARB would be happy.
Nice, I like the forward thinking by ford on this. I only wish next they open up the engine controller, and let the real hackers in!
Since we are on the topic: I wish Tesla would finally live up to their obligations and release the GPLed parts of their product (that includes, at a minimum, the Linux kernel with all modifications).
GPL compliance (sigh) and a new SDK for a vehicle aren't really the same topic. They just happen to have cars in common. If I left a comment about the camshaft on my Jeep, that wouldn't be on topic, even though it's about cars. That aside, what do you hope to gain from their GPL compliance? Pop open the GPL compliance kit from, say, a Netgear router and you get a kernel, a few drivers, and the toolchain used to build…
Heres the problem: they employ a dozen of people that know very well of the obligations under the GPL. They use GPLed software in core parts of their products. There are possibly thousands of copyright holders for the used GPL software. Taken together, thats a highly combustible mix.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because "for curiosity" isn't a term stated in any GPL license. You can be offended as much as you want for them not releasing it but unless you own a Tesla they don't have to share their modifications with you. If you are unhappy with that, I suggest sharing your work under a different license.
I'm perfectly fine with that, but you seem confused about the argument here. GPL code distributors don't have the right to say curiosity, or any other reason, is invalid cause to enforce the GPL. And while I do not have standing to request GPL licensed code from Tesla, they have a legal obligation to either distribute that code directly, or a provide a transferable offer to distribute that code, to their customers. C…
> Code properly distributed as such inevitably would make it back out into the wider open source community; this is the design of the GPL
The design of the GPL is to protect the users rights to use, access and modify the software in perpetuity. There is no provision in the license that modifiers have to share modified works with the author specifically - they just have to make it accessible to the people they are distributing it to.
Being the author of a GPL work and wanting access to those changes because you are merely curious or want those changes to be merged into the original work, the unfortunate reality is that the GPL will do squat for you in that regard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm perfectly fine with that, but you seem confused about the argument here. GPL code distributors don't have the right to say curiosity, or any other reason, is invalid cause to enforce the GPL. And while I do not have standing to request GPL licensed code from Tesla, they have a legal obligation to either distribute that code directly, or a provide a transferable offer to distribute that code, to their customers. C…
Yes, they are legally obligated to share their modifications with their customers. No arguments here. > Code properly distributed as such inevitably would make it back out into the wider open source community; this is the design of the GPL The design of the GPL is to protect the users rights to use, access and modify the software in perpetuity. There is no provision in the license that modifiers have to share modifie…