171–180 of 229 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(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.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_identification_number
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
Such a low understanding of tech on a site called "Hacker" News.
Rudely dismissive comments are not allowed here. We ban accounts that do this, so please don't.
If you know more than someone else does, help them learn. If you can't or don't want to do that, please don't comment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(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.
(an example code would be "J123456")
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was also under that impression as well, but from that same page you posted: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#WhatDoesWritten... Which sounds like if you didn't provide the source with the program up front then you're required to give it to anyone that asks since they may have received the program indirectly.
> since they may have received the program indirectly. Which is rarely possible for a car OS, honestly.
What GPL licensed software are they actually infringing upon? The linked post[1] says they found mentions of systemd, but does the firmware actually contain a linux kernel? I don't see anything that looks like a kernel in the file listing. Also if the firmware is properly signed delivering it over http shouldn't matter, right? [1] https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2016/02/bmw-are-sending-their-softw...
A little bit of digging shows a 2014 BMW i3 claiming to run 2.6.32-28 in it's licences section.(STLinux) However on the other hand there are numerous references of it having Tegra in media too...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was also under that impression as well, but from that same page you posted: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#WhatDoesWritten... Which sounds like if you didn't provide the source with the program up front then you're required to give it to anyone that asks since they may have received the program indirectly.
> since they may have received the program indirectly. Which is rarely possible for a car OS, honestly.
What GPL licensed software are they actually infringing upon? The linked post[1] says they found mentions of systemd, but does the firmware actually contain a linux kernel? I don't see anything that looks like a kernel in the file listing. Also if the firmware is properly signed delivering it over http shouldn't matter, right? [1] https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2016/02/bmw-are-sending-their-softw...
The specific update here is just a delta update, and doesn't contain the entire firmware. But it does contain shared libraries built for running on a linux system, so it stands to reason there's linux kernel running somewhere there. (On that note - have someone sent a similar request to Tesla - they've at least semi-officially said they're running Linux)
Yes, people have sent requests to Tesla, and they continue to ignore these requests to this day. See http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/archive/index.php/t-10748.htm...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Read option B more carefully. The requirement is NOT that you have to give out source code to anyone who asks. It is that the written offer you give out can be used by anyone. Did BMW hand out a written offer with the car that says how to get source code? If so, then it is fine if that offer requires you to enter a piece of information like a VIN. BMW is under no obligation to hand out written offers to random strang…
Let D be the distributor, C be their customer, and T be a third party. The language of 3(b) says that D must give C a written offer to distribute the source to any T. I don't see anything in it that says T has to have a copy of the offer. It says "any third party", and unless there is something in the license that restricts this I'd expect a court to go with the normal meanings of "any" any "third party". The GPL FAQ…
The scenario I outlined does not require possession of the written offer to get source code. Possession of the knowledge in it, yes. But not possession of the offer. In particular it is reasonable to require you to know that you have to provide a VIN number to get the software. It is also reasonable for you to know what number to call, or address to send, or fee to pay, or even what to say to get to someone knowledgeable enough to have a chance of answering your questions.
In fact this email thread said that there is a website where you can enter the VIN and get the source code. I doubt it validates that you are who you say you are. If that website is world readable, I'd say that the GPL is satisfied.
(The email thread also made it clear that the people who responded from BMW Australia didn't themselves understand the license. But that is no surprise for an odd request of random people in a big company.)