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

111–120 of 229 posts

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

#111

Post by rbanffy »

famerr wrote: post #100

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).

> Does it means all the network routers running custom linux have to provide sources of entire modification?

Yes.

> 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)

What problem? Making the source code of the programs you distribute to your clients available is not a problem - it's an obligation you agreed with when you used the GPL'ed program as a basis for your own.

You could do like Sony, who used *BSD on the PS4.

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

#112

Post by oldmanjay »

Kiro wrote: post #106
School-Cotton wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, you release code but don't let anyone use it? Because that's the legal effect of not putting licenses on your stuff.

Yep and I use code without license all the time. Show me one case where that has ever caused a problem.

The point isn't that it may cause you a problem. The point is that the license is the structure by which people understand how they can use things, and the lack of a license is generally taken as "don't touch this" by the larger community. It's essentially opting out of the larger pool of contribution, which is of course totally valid and your right.

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

#113

Post by rbanffy »

SyneRyder wrote: post #103
jmiserez wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The linked site may be useful, but where on that site did you find a download link for the specific software version (including modifications) used? All I see is a generic link to ConnMan's project website. I don't think that suffices?

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/?...

I have a feeling they would still have to be able to provide their clients with the exact version their cars are running.

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

#114

Post by amscanne »

icebraining wrote: post #98
13of40 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 it's an application, no, but if it's a kernel module (e.g. drivers to talk to their devices), then yes. They still have to offer a copy of the kernel source, even if they haven't modified it.

>If it's an application, no, but if it's a kernel module (e.g. drivers to talk to their devices), then yes.

There is debate about this, but there are certainly cases of compliant non-GPL modules. It doesn't strictly follow. (Consider Ndiswrapper, for example.)

> They still have to offer a copy of the kernel source, even if they haven't modified it.

I don't really think the license implies technical minutae like this. The source must simply be made available "on a medium customarily used for software interchange". Whether you point to a tag on kernel.org or host it own your own web servers (both cases including the Kconfig) is irrelevant.

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

#115

Post by [deleted] »

icebraining wrote: post #98
13of40 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 it's an application, no, but if it's a kernel module (e.g. drivers to talk to their devices), then yes. They still have to offer a copy of the kernel source, even if they haven't modified it.

[deleted]

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

#116

Post by goerz »

ceejayoz wrote: post #93
goerz wrote: post #92

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…

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 people strongly dislike GPLv3, possibly exactly for this reason.

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

#117

Post by yaur »

daemin wrote: post #83
thom_nic wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think if they're running unmodified code, they could just say "we are running X version Y with no modifications" and link to the upstream and be done with it. Which could be the case. Or they have modified it and are refusing to release the source with their modifications. But they haven't stated the former.

Technically they don't need to give you the code unless you own that model of car. There's no requirement in the GPL that the code has to be shared to the whole world/everyone. It only needs to be provided to the person that has bought the vehicle which includes said software in compiled form.

This is not correct. They need to provide the offer for source to anyone they provide the binaries to (e.g. customers) but the offer has to be valid for anyone that gets a hold of it[1].

[1]http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#WhatDoesWrittenO...

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

#118

Post by DannyBee »

SyneRyder wrote: post #103
jmiserez wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The linked site may be useful, but where on that site did you find a download link for the specific software version (including modifications) used? All I see is a generic link to ConnMan's project website. I don't think that suffices?

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

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

#119

Post by zmmmmm »

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 the source code does not seem unreasonable since they are only required to distribute source code to customers, and he has simply emailed them out of the blue asking them to give him the source without any proof that he's a customer. The statement about BMW being the "sole owner" is probably concerning proprietary parts of the software that may not be subject to GPL at all. It is probably way beyond the skills of some random customer service rep to distinguish the subtleties of those kind of things.

This kind of interaction actually looks to me to be counter to the spirit under which the Free Software Foundation tries to administer the GPL - which is that they work cooperatively to help companies comply rather than try to trick them into legal hot water. I agree with the FSF approach and I don't think this sort of PR ambush type tactic is helpful in promoting the use of free software.

Post reply on HN