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

81–90 of 229 posts

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

#81

Post by jmiserez »

SyneRyder wrote: post #55

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…

The linked site may be useful, but where on that site did you find a download link for the specific software version (including modifications) used? All I see is a generic link to ConnMan's project website. I don't think that suffices?

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

#82

Post by jamiesonbecker »

mh8h wrote: post #63
a3n wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I understand correctly, all you have to do is add gplCode + yourCode, no modification to gplCode, and that obligates you to a) distribute your source, and b) license your source as gpl.

If you need to link your code against some GPL code, then your code is GPL. But in most cases, a program that runs in a Linux environment doesn't need to link against any GPL libraries.

Because of this, libraries are frequently licensed under the Lesser GPL instead, which does permit linking without causing the resultant work from becoming GPL'ed itself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_Lice...

As you point out, linking code against GPL'ed code or libraries essentially merges them and makes the end result GPL'ed as well.

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

#83

Post by daemin »

thom_nic wrote: post #33
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?

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.

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

#84

Post by rewqfdsa »

Good. I'm sick of people walking over copyleft licenses generally. It's only because of copyleft that there exists a pro-sharing social norm in the software development community. If you kick down the GPL, the norm will shift back toward proprietary software everywhere. You, young developer, have no idea just how shitty a world that is.

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

#85

Post by matt4077 »

sseveran wrote: post #39
witten wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how the GPL works. If it would be inconvenient for BMW to incorporate GPL software and properly comply with the license by providing source, then their only alternative is not to incorporate the GPL software. Full stop. Harm or proprietary hardware has no bearing on the rights granted by the GPL.

That is true in the real world if and only if there is someone willing to sue BMW and see it through to the end. Absent someone doing that I don't see how the GPL is actually enforceable. In some ways it is similar to what we have with surveillance and the NSA in US. While they are probably breaking the law the courts have been unwilling to force them to stop.

1. They're not "breaking the law" because copyright infringement is primarily a civil matter (recent changes nonwithstanding).

2. Your statement is essentially tautological because nothing in civil law is ever enforced without someone taking the initiative.

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

#86

Post by voxic11 »

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.

You are required to distribute the source code to anyone you distribute binaries to. So if for instance their binaries were available to the public then they would also have to make their source code available to the public.

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

#87

Post by akiselev »

sseveran wrote: post #39
witten wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how the GPL works. If it would be inconvenient for BMW to incorporate GPL software and properly comply with the license by providing source, then their only alternative is not to incorporate the GPL software. Full stop. Harm or proprietary hardware has no bearing on the rights granted by the GPL.

That is true in the real world if and only if there is someone willing to sue BMW and see it through to the end. Absent someone doing that I don't see how the GPL is actually enforceable. In some ways it is similar to what we have with surveillance and the NSA in US. While they are probably breaking the law the courts have been unwilling to force them to stop.

》 That is true in the real world if and only if there is someone willing to sue BMW and see it through to the end. Absent someone doing that I don't see how the GPL is actually enforceable.

So... just like every other contract, ever? You can't have an enforceable agreement between civilians without courts. Anyone willfully making a derivative of GPL software explicitly agrees to that contract and as usual, courts are the arbiters. Yes someone needs to go to court.

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

#88

Post by voxic11 »

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.

You are required to distribute the source code to anyone you distribute binaries to. So if for instance their binaries were available to the public then they would also have to make their source code available to the public. It seems in this case they released a patch to their software and made the patch available to the public.

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

#89

Post by xvedejas »

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.

Well, two things: first, they have to provide source to everyone (regardless of whether they bought the product or not) if they are releasing the product at all. Secondly, if they are statically linking with GPL-licensed code, or otherwise make modifications to the code, the additional code must also be released under the same license, and the code for that must therefore also be made available.

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

#90

Post by lucb1e »

akamaka wrote: post #78
lucb1e wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

History has proven over and over again that naming and shaming works miracles. Companies that turned a blind eye and were completely unreachable suddenly turned active and kind just to save their reputation. Going to or even just threatening to go to the media, I know from experience, is indeed productive. I am really curious where you got the idea that it's counter productive. Asking the conservancy to clean up this…

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).
Post reply on HN