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

221–229 of 229 posts

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

#221

Post by Kiro »

dragonwriter wrote: post #220
Kiro wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's a company which cares about copyright I'm sure they will put a license on it. The scenario we're talking about is where people put up code without bothering putting a license on it. I have a hard time seeing anyone would be sued for using that since the author clearly don't care.

A license is permission to use rights reserved under copyright. Someone who cares about copyright but doesn't intend to give any permissions will not provide a license.

Alright, alright. I'll tell my wife I'm going to jail.

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

#222

Post by cyphar »

Kiro wrote: post #219
cyphar wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on whose copyright you infringed upon. If it's a company, you can bet your ass they'll sue you if they find out. If it was an individual, then probably nothing will happen. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't use a free software license for your software. Many people will refuse to use it, because they cannot be sure they are legally allowed to do so.

If it's a company which cares about copyright I'm sure they will put a license on it. The scenario we're talking about is where people put up code without bothering putting a license on it. I have a hard time seeing anyone would be sued for using that since the author clearly don't care.

That's not how the Berne Convention works. Copyright is applied automatically. You can't just assume people who publish works without a license "don't care". Maybe they don't want to give you a license and want to retain all of their rights under copyright law.

I always put licenses on all of my works (including presentations, blog posts, images, as well as code obviously). All of them are licenses which make it clear that I wish to provide people more freedom than granted by default under copyright law (in counties that follow the Berne Convention).

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

#223

Post by amscanne »

icebraining wrote: post #163
amscanne wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.…

There is debate about this, but there are certainly cases of compliant non-GPL modules. It doesn't strictly follow. (Consider Ndiswrapper, for example.) Ndiswrapper is GPL-licensed. The resulting modules are probably not, but they are usually not distributed anyway. 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…

> Ndiswrapper is GPL-licensed. The resulting modules are probably not, but they are usually not distributed anyway.

I was referring to modules wrapped by ndiswrapper. Of course they are distributed.

There are other examples as well: nvidia being a salient one.

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

#224

Post by [deleted] »

icebraining wrote: post #163
amscanne wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.…

There is debate about this, but there are certainly cases of compliant non-GPL modules. It doesn't strictly follow. (Consider Ndiswrapper, for example.) Ndiswrapper is GPL-licensed. The resulting modules are probably not, but they are usually not distributed anyway. 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…

[deleted]

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

#225

Post by anonbanker »

strictnein wrote: post #17
nailer wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where is the evidence that they've modified GPL'd software There's a Linux kernel and systemd in the 'i3'. See the links in the first few sentences of the article. > which they are then distributing BMW is a Bayerische Motor Work, a car company that distributes cars > and are refusing to distribute the source code for their modifications? The letters from BMW to the people asking for a copy of the source, stating t…

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'd say it's about the highest form of violation. if someone says your copylefted code now belongs to them, and you don't sue them for relief, it becomes their property under law, and you lose your claim to copyleft in the first place.

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

#226

Post by anonbanker »

nevinera wrote: post #99
spiznnx wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would assume the legal department would generally read and respond to letters on legitimate concerns, even at a megacorp.

Generally speaking, they will definitely read them (and occasionally take action), but only respond if they have some legal obligation to do so. Any reply they make to an inquiry or accusation of this type can be used against them, but a lack of response cannot (unless that lack of response violates some requirement of the law).

This is why it's good to have a bilateral contract with them prior to your contact, so that they have a legal obligation to reply. When they dont reply to your offer of renegotiation or relief, you're safe to use their silence as acquiescence or dishonor, depending on circumstance.

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

#227

Post by anonbanker »

greydius wrote: post #80

Please correct me if I'm wrong. I thought the GPL only required providing the source code to the purchasers of the product. (Who can then redestribute it if they'd like.) I didn't think it meant that if you use GPL code in your product, then you are obligated to make your code available to everyone.

If I am the author of the GPL'd product you're using, I do not have to purchase your product to compel you to release the source code. I can revoke your right to use the product (including your modifications to it) should you not honor the terms.

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

#228

Post by dTal »

noselasd wrote: post #8
dmm wrote: post #4

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)

>semi-officially said they're running Linux

The Model S was independently confirmed to be running Linux 2 years ago:

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/28185-Successf...

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

#229

Post by goerz »

cyphar wrote: post #213
goerz wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incidentally, if you send me a USB stick with some GPL software on it, I can demand that you give me the source code of that software. However, I can not demand that you also give me the source code for the firmware of the USB stick, even if the source code for that firmware is under GPL (v2)

I would definitely demand the firmware if it is GPL. Just because it is "firmware" doesn't suddenly not make it software that you've given me.

I can't fathom a reading of the GPLv2 that would support your position. It's just not in there (it is, in GPLv3).
Post reply on HN