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

191–200 of 229 posts

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

#191

Post by outworlder »

This is ridiculous. So now, any John Doe can contact customer support of any company, then publicly shame them for not getting the response they want? Aren't there organizations with the sole purpose of investigating Free Software license violations, with access to actual lawyers? Where's the email thread of such correspondence?

This sounds like a child crying mommy. Oh, and while I usually approve attempts at breaking the way-too-serious corporate speak, smileys seem to detract from the gravity of the issue being discussed.

Can we get responsible people to handle this, please? Like the Free Software Foundation? Not a flash mob on the internet. This is counter-productive.

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

#192

Post by famerr »

rbanffy wrote: post #111
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 pr…

Good point, thank you.

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

#193

Post by famerr »

st3v3r wrote: post #141
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).

What's the problem?

First is security, if current asset based on linux is vulnerable and you make it public consequences are obvious. Or even your system is vulnerable itself because of modifications. Or 0day that will reveal afterwards. And your product is based on embedded systems. I understand it's your choice, but it holds the development.

Second is competitive advantage. If you have to release modified system, that you use in your product on day 0, when you started, it interfere your business. Again it's your choice, but it could hold the development. So reasonable alternative would be good.

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

#194

Post by famerr »

zmmmmm wrote: post #109
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).

No. There is a boundary between the "kernel" which is strictly GPL and the "user" operating system which is (in its interaction with the kernel) based on LGPL and weaker libraries. So these routers have to distribute changes they make to the kernel, yes, but not any and everything that runs on the router.

Makes sense, thank you for explanation.

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

#195

Post by famerr »

st3v3r wrote: post #141
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).

What's the problem?

But it's much better if comment by zmmmmm is correct and it only touches kernel modifications.

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

#196

Post by Qwertious »

lucb1e wrote: post #132
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)

Vehicles aren't the only things running software that might need verifying. Far from it. While I wholeheartedly agree that it would be an amazing step, I also fear the huge backlash from the car and IT industry. Doing this more gradual probably works better, perhaps requiring open source (I'm not talking freedom of modification or redistributing or anything yet, just viewing source code) for software older than x yea…

"Perhaps requiring open source (I'm not talking freedom of modification or redistributing or anything yet, just viewing source code)"

The term you're looking for is "source-available", which means precisely that the source code is available for viewing, and does not imply anything about conditions or lack of.

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

#197

Post by kuschku »

bobbles wrote: post #177
kuschku wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> since they may have received the program indirectly. Which is rarely possible for a car OS, honestly.

People buying used cars is pretty common...

In that case you have the car, and the VIN – and received the software directly.

Please specify a use case where you received the software without the VIN, thanks.

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

#198

Post by kuschku »

st3v3r wrote: post #175
kuschku wrote: post #162

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.

In that case you have the car, and the VIN – and received the software directly.

Please specify a use case where you received the software without the VIN, thanks.

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

#199

Post by cyphar »

lucb1e wrote: post #132
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)

Vehicles aren't the only things running software that might need verifying. Far from it. While I wholeheartedly agree that it would be an amazing step, I also fear the huge backlash from the car and IT industry. Doing this more gradual probably works better, perhaps requiring open source (I'm not talking freedom of modification or redistributing or anything yet, just viewing source code) for software older than x yea…

> Doing this more gradual probably works better, perhaps requiring open source (I'm not talking freedom of modification or redistributing or anything yet, just viewing source code) for software older than x years (like the patent model a bit, 20 years or so).

In that case, the car software is still proprietary software so you've gained very little from making the source code public. If a vulnerability is found, you can't write a patch for it and you have to wait for BMW to "get around to you". Car software should be free software upfront.

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

#200

Post by cyphar »

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.

Once they give a copy to one owner, that owner can distribute it publicly.
Post reply on HN