181–190 of 229 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> since they may have received the program indirectly. Which is rarely possible for a car OS, honestly.
Really? I would consider it to be quite common, given the prevalence of used cars.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is when random people from the internet start unwarranted attacks over GPL violations when the problem can be dealt with constructively. The example that pops into my head is the time when some kid start working on a mod to the Quake 3D engine that was possibly in violation of a free software license. Instead of just reporting it to the copyright holder (id Software), they engaged in a campaign of harassm…
I see your point but would say there is a difference between a kid and a multinational. The same law rules both but an individual doing this by accident vs. a company doing it due to ignorance (in the best case) is different. The multinational has enough money to defend itself in court, any individual is bound to have less, especially a kid (in your example).
Now in theory, CS should be "empowered" or able to escalate, but this is juvenile, to me, the very briefest of exchanges and then off to HN and elsewhere with "time for a lawsuit!".
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…
"I have confirmed with our technical department who advised that to access the software download site the BMW Customer must provide the 7 digit VIN and accept the usage rights agreement. Part of the usage rights agreement states that the software is protected by copyright and BMW is the sole owner. So in this case it is not subject to the requirements of a "Public" licence."
They're denying that their software is even GPL and imposing extra restrictions on use. That's a problem, if it does indeed include GPL code.
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…
That may be, but this tidbit is somewhat alarming to me:
[the user must] accept the usage rights agreement. Part of the usage rights agreement states that the software is protected by copyright and BMW is the sole owner
There's two red flags here for me:
- asserting copyright through an EULA
- additional "licensing" requirements for obtaining the source code
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read that, but isn't this is the lowest type of "violation" there is? People are just wanting them to host the source code that is already available in about a billion locations then? My question still stands, is there evidence that they're modifying GPL'd code and then not distributing that code?
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.
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)
The auto industry does have a plethora of coding standards and software processes, but not enough institutional knowledge and foresight to produce secure software for connected devices. The fact that it hasn't been too catastrophic so far is more a testament to the technical limitations of the bus systems and ECUs than real security, but that is rapidly changing with the advanced hardware being put in cars today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Respectfully, I don't think this is about 'kindness.' This is about BMW, a commercial entity, respecting the legal rights of the property creators as owners. The license agreement is clear, and certain actions must take place if BMW chooses to benefit from use of the software. BMW is free to NOT use the software if they feel these restrictions are too severe. Or am I missing something?
I don't really look at GPL too closely, since I do not code for a living, or make commercial products, but I have to say my superficial understanding of opensource and GPL was piqued by the statement from @jackhat above with the 'legal rights of the property creators as owners.' If I take this statement to mean that GPL is the mirror-image of proprietary license agreements in that it is not free to use, since the sti…
No. Your latter assertion is correct: GPL code is not free as in beer. How you contort that into a "mirror-image of proprietary license" is your own interpretation, and requires a lot more elaboration on your part.
To put it in the most simplest terms: the GPL is mainly concerned with the freedom of the source code, not the freedom of the developer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the way I read its is that no, BMW is NOT legally required to release it as it is in a proprietary piece of HW, and releasing the code could thus cause harm to their business. and while they ARE using it for 'gain', no one can prove that they were HARMED or had a loss of income or even IP (outside of copyright) by their (BMW's) use of such as it is essentially 'free' in that no money or barter items were exchanged. T…
If you are talking in practice - can someone sue BMW and force them to release the modified versions - I think you're right, but one can still get an injunction preventing them from distributing any more copies of the work. Which means no more cars with that firmware; not a happy prospect for BMW!