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

51–60 of 229 posts

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

#51

Post by strictnein »

iajrz wrote: post #30
strictnein wrote: post #17

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?

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.

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

#52

Post by throwaway125 »

cjbprime wrote: post #35
sudhirj wrote: post #21

Is it a violation if they don't modify Linux itself? So if I make a device that runs Linux and my application binary, am I required to make my application code public?

Yes, it actually is. People saying it isn't haven't read the license. :) 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2…

I think you might have misread the gp. gp asked

>am I required to make my application code public?

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

#53

Post by davidgerard »

pigpaws wrote: post #13
jackhack wrote: post #7

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?

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…

You are completely incorrect, this does involve copying something copyrighted and thus opens the possibility of infringement.

Violating GPL and refusing to make good (they always ask for just the code release first) can go very badly indeed for the violator, e.g. http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2010/08/court-...

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

#54

Post by realkitkat »

antocv wrote: post #24

Has anyone ever seen GPL being encorced in any country? Wont this end with BWM uploading a tar.gz of a kernel found on kernel.org and call it a good working day? Have seen it happen too many times, and in most countries the user has no claim on the license/copyright. So unless I contributed/own some copyright found in exact Linux kernel version/other software used by a distributor, and buy their stuff, there is zilch…

Here are some example cases that have ended up to courts of law [linksys][busybox][fortinet][vmware]. [linksys] http://tinyurl.com/l9zd7qo [busybox] http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2010/08/court-... [fortinet] http://gpl-violations.org/news/20050414-fortinet/ [vmware] https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vmware-lawsuit...

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

#55

Post by SyneRyder »

Google could have helped here:

BMW Car IT: Open Source http://www.bmw-carit.com/open-source/

I'll take a guess based on the filename "ConnStarter" in the BMW firmware that ConnMann is the primary GPL'd software. As the BMW site says: "The ConnMan project provides a daemon for managing internet connections within embedded devices running the Linux operating system.... ConnMan is available under the terms of the GPL v2."

http://www.bmw-carit.com/open-source/connman.php

You can download the source if you like.

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

#56

Post by lucb1e »

ocschwar wrote: post #31
lucb1e wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that case, it shouldn't be a problem to point to Linux' code repository right?

And it won't be. But cut their public relations staff some slack. They can't tell Richard Stallman from Gregory Rasputin, and before saying or doing anything they're going to be bringing themselves up to speed on what the GPL is. No need to get rage-y just yet.

It's their obligation to forward what they don't understand. If I work for a mobile network carrier and say something that indicates we don't follow some privacy law, it's my fault for not asking my boss how we handle certain things. (And my boss might ask his/hers, etc.)

Edit: I didn't downvote you, by the way.

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

#57

Post by bryanlarsen »

castis wrote: post #38

What is the worst-case scenario for an entity that refuses to comply?

Worst case scenario is that a court issues an injunction halting distribution of the infringing product. This has happened in the past: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11217620

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

#58

Post by Tyr42 »

Kiro wrote: post #43
castis wrote: post #38

What is the worst-case scenario for an entity that refuses to comply?

Probably not much and that's why I don't put any licenses on my stuff.

Refusing to put a licence on your code does stop people from using it. If you really don't care, just slap a MIT license on it and be done with it, no one will bother you afterwards.

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

#59

Post by ocschwar »

ocschwar wrote: post #31
lucb1e wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that case, it shouldn't be a problem to point to Linux' code repository right?

And it won't be. But cut their public relations staff some slack. They can't tell Richard Stallman from Gregory Rasputin, and before saying or doing anything they're going to be bringing themselves up to speed on what the GPL is. No need to get rage-y just yet.

All true. But until word comes down from legal about what to say, you can't blame the PR flacks for saying nothing.

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

#60

Post by ryan-c »

[deleted] wrote: post #23
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...

[deleted]

> If you have already MitM'ed someone, you can also modify the signature to match the payload.

Not without the signing key.

Post reply on HN