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

151–160 of 229 posts

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

#151

Post by School-Cotton »

oldmanjay wrote: post #112
Kiro wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not just how the community interprets it; it's the law.

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

#152

Post by charonn0 »

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?

That's pretty much what happened to Linksys.

[1]: http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/tutorials/article.php/3562391/The...

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

#153

Post by the_mitsuhiko »

jmiserez wrote: post #104
knd775 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was linked from the project website http://git.kernel.org/cgit/network/connman/connman.git/ edit Never mind, I misunderstood your comment

Yes, but that is just the ConnMan development repository. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think BMW would need to redistribute the exact version of ConnMan that they used, including any modifications made. At least a deep link to a branch or tag would be nice.

But only on request.

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

#154

Post by [deleted] »

jmiserez wrote: post #104
knd775 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was linked from the project website http://git.kernel.org/cgit/network/connman/connman.git/ edit Never mind, I misunderstood your comment

Yes, but that is just the ConnMan development repository. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think BMW would need to redistribute the exact version of ConnMan that they used, including any modifications made. At least a deep link to a branch or tag would be nice.

[deleted]

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

#155

Post by y04nn »

At least their update binaries are unencrypted, which allow us to see what they are using. If some of you want to have a look: The article: https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2016/02/bmw-are-sending-their-softw...

Direct link to the binary: http://www.bmw.com/_common/shared/owners/bluetooth/bin/UPD07...

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

#156

Post by boobsbr »

genericacct wrote: post #124

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)

I think this problem is impossible to solve, and it's the same on faced by electronic voting.

How can you guarantee that the software running in the car is the same one provided by the car manufacturer?

A more detailed explanation:

You can't guarantee that software provided by the manufacturer and the dump you could retrieve from the car – through an API call, or through forceful means – are the same as the one which is running in the car because you can't know what's going on the silicon inside epoxy packaging of the myriad of chips in the board

Even if the hardware is completely open sourced, the manufacturer could use a different/modified microprocessor packaged/labeled/branded just like the one specified in the schematics, so that it could internally store and run the shady code from the manufacturer, while giving you a perfectly legit and signed dump as the one provided by the manufacturer.

Although I do agree that opening the software and hardware to public scrutiny would be a massive improvement on the actual situation.

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

#157

Post by coldpie »

ryao wrote: post #150
coldpie wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

Are there any organizations that pursue GPL violations that would stick to clear-cut cases of GPL violations where there is strong concensus among OSS developers that violations have occurred like the BMW case? 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…

I haven't followed the ZFS stuff much at all, but SFC's news post about it the other day did make me wonder why they were doing it. I think it's important to enforce the GPL and other copy-left licenses when they are being blatantly violated, even if the original authors no longer care about the project. But if it's an unintentional license incompatibility, where the spirit of the licenses are roughly aligned, who really cares? Who is benefiting by bothering Canonical or the ZFS-on-Linux developers with these license concerns?

In my case, SFC is pro-bono council for the Wine project, from which I derive my income. So even if I don't always completely understand what they do, I feel I should pitch in because they contribute to my livelihood. I'm not a legal guy, I don't pay super close attention to this stuff, I trust them to do something not far from "the right thing."

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

#158

Post by 5ilv3r »

0xffff2 wrote: post #148
mrb wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

(I think you meant BMW, not IBM...)

BMW VIN must be longer than 7 digits.... IBM product license serial numbers at 7 digits would make more sense.

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

#159

Post by dublinben »

mrb wrote: post #147
tzs wrote: post #129

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…

Did you see any source code in that firmware download? I'm not an expert, but it looked to me like a lot of compiled binaries.

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

#160

Post by EdHominem »

strictnein wrote: post #51
iajrz wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

evidence that they've modified, not afaict. But refusing to give up the GPL'd code, even if stock, is a violation. And there are no sizes to license violations.

There's evidence where? And I know there aren't in theory different types of violations, but I think we all understand that there are different types in practice.

Not like you think. It's not like this is a a crime, but a small one, so a judge can say "Oh, then a small fine is warranted."

This is a license and if BMW doesn't comply 100% with the license their right to use the copyrighted code is entirely revoked.

Post reply on HN