BMW Australia Refusing to Comply with Terms of GNU Public License • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by OJFord » Thu, Mar 03, 2016, 4:39 PM UTC

It seems to me less like refusal to comply with the terms of GPL, and more like denial that they use GPLed code.

    > I have confirmed with our technical department who
    > advised that ... the usage rights agreement states that
    > the software is protected by copyright and BMW is the
    > sole owner... it is not subject to the requirements of a
    > "Public" licence

That may or may not be the case, but to me that doesn't say "yeah we use, na you can't have it".

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

#92

Post by goerz » Thu, Mar 03, 2016, 4:40 PM UTC

It seems to me that they're not distributing any software (i.e., the product is a car, not software), which means licensing doesn't come into play. It would be akin to someone finding out that I'm privately using (and maybe modifying) GPL software, and then demand that I make the source code available to them. Only in GPLv3, the issue of selling a product that uses GPL software internally is addressed. The situation changes of course once they make the software itself accessible to third parties, in which case they'd also have to supply the source code.

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

#93

Post by ceejayoz » Thu, Mar 03, 2016, 4:41 PM UTC

goerz wrote: post #92

It seems to me that they're not distributing any software (i.e., the product is a car, not software), which means licensing doesn't come into play. It would be akin to someone finding out that I'm privately using (and maybe modifying) GPL software, and then demand that I make the source code available to them. Only in GPLv3, the issue of selling a product that uses GPL software internally is addressed. The situation…

If that were the case, you could get around the GPL by claiming to sell CDs, thumbdrives, or zip files. Including software in your hardware product is undeniably distributing that software, IMO.

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

#94

Post by knd775 » Thu, Mar 03, 2016, 4:41 PM UTC

jmiserez wrote: post #81

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?

This was linked from the project website

http://git.kernel.org/cgit/network/connman/connman.git/

edit Never mind, I misunderstood your comment

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

#95

Post by nordsieck » Thu, Mar 03, 2016, 4:42 PM UTC

xvedejas wrote: post #89

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.

"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 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)"

That is not true. As long as they choose option A, they only have to distribute it to customers.

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

#96

Post by 13of40 » Thu, Mar 03, 2016, 4:42 PM UTC

voxic11 wrote: post #88

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.

If I sell a computer with Linux on it, and I bundle on my own application that's compiled to run on Linux, am I required to make the source code for that application available?

In this case, if they just have an unmodified copy of Linux to provide the run-time environment for their nav system or whatever, and the nav system itself is an application on top of it, I don't know if it follows that they need to release the source for their nav system.

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

#97

Post by OJFord » Thu, Mar 03, 2016, 4:43 PM UTC

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.

I'm pretty certain they don't distribute source code with cars though, so seeing as the author didn't say "I don't own the car" - and they didn't ask - I think that's moot.

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

#98

Post by icebraining » Thu, Mar 03, 2016, 4:44 PM UTC

13of40 wrote: post #96

voxic11 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If I sell a computer with Linux on it, and I bundle on my own application that's compiled to run on Linux, am I required to make the source code for that application available? In this case, if they just have an unmodified copy of Linux to provide the run-time environment for their nav system or whatever, and the nav system itself is an application on top of it, I don't know if it follows that they need to release th…

If it's an application, no, but if it's a kernel module (e.g. drivers to talk to their devices), then yes. They still have to offer a copy of the kernel source, even if they haven't modified it.

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

#99

Post by nevinera » Thu, Mar 03, 2016, 4:44 PM UTC

spiznnx wrote: post #79

pjc50 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How else can one get in touch with a megacorp?

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).

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

#100

Post by famerr » Thu, Mar 03, 2016, 4:45 PM UTC

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).