Jun 9, 2015
lagann Is anyone else upset that Tesla has not given us owners any of the OSS software that are in the car yet? I mean, I love the car and Tesla, but this is a serious slap in the face for all the developers who put their hard work into those projects, including the Linux kernel. I emailed them about it and was basically just told it's "unsupported". If this were their plan, they should have just written it all in-house instead of stealing the software.�
Jun 9, 2015
Majerus Many companies sadly abuse GPL , and OSS in general. Based on the share holders conference I do not think Tesla will anytime soon release any source. The line Elon mentioned regarding wanting to protect the source due to the possibilities of vulnerabilities IMO is BS.�
Jun 9, 2015
lagann I agree. It's really not their choice, either. In this case they're just being big bullies. I emailed GNU since I'm sure Tesla is using some of their code, and they said they can't really do anything without a firmware binary to verify that any of their code is included.�
Jun 9, 2015
green1 Sadly, I'm not certain that Tesla is in violation of the GPL, it can be argued that they don't distribute the software in binary form to anyone, and therefore they may not need to release the source either (GPL allows you to use that software internally without releasing source, only if you release binaries do you also need to release source)
I'd like them to release the source, but so far Tesla's response to any attempts to interop with their hardware or software has been... disappointing is the most polite term I can come up with.�
Jun 9, 2015
Chris TX But, you're paying for the license to use it. Sure, no one is buying just the software but it is being used for commercial purposes.
It took several years for Dell to be pressured into releasing their OSS they used for some networking gear.
However, I can certainly understand Tesla's concern about things being exploited, especially with Autopilot hardware onboard. You don't want stuff like that making the news.
�
Jun 9, 2015
green1 The difference with the Dell gear is that you could download the binaries to upgrade your router, you can't do the same with the Tesla (hence why we can't supply a binary to GNU)
Hence Dell was distributing binaries, Tesla arguably is not.�
Jun 9, 2015
Stoneymonster It's also pretty easy to architect the code around GPL and keep nearly everything from being tainted. When they do release code, don't expect there to be anything useful or interesting.�
Jun 10, 2015
lagann This is completely wrong. The software comes in the car when you buy it, which counts as distribution. It is NOT just being used internally since the touchscreen at least has the Linux kernel. Just because you can't easily get access to the binary doesn't mean Tesla is exempt from copyright laws...
Here's a question on stack overflow about it licensing - GPL licensed software installed on commercial hardware - Programmers Stack Exchange
- - - Updated - - -
If this was such of a concern they should have written it themselves. Their security concerns don't give them the right to steal.
- - - Updated - - -
Once again this is so wrong it hurts. Having it on the hardware you buy counts as distribution. There is no other argument.�
Jun 10, 2015
matbl It is a common missunderstandning that by using GPL'ed OSS, you have to release the source. You only have to release any modified source code. And strictly speaking you only have to release the actual modification. So technically they could release tgeir patch files and that's that. IF they have modified any GPL'ed code.�
Jun 10, 2015
scaesare
Correct. What's more you can use GPL'd components in your stack (such as the base OS), and write your drivers to plug in to it, all of your apps to run on top of it, etc... and you don't need to release any of that as long as you haven't modified the source of the GPL'd components you choose to use.�
Jun 10, 2015
GaryREM +1 to matbl and scaesare
Making noise about what may be a nonexistent issue.�
Jun 10, 2015
lagann This is true, but where are any of the statements about this? In the manual there's a statement that OSS is used, and a link to Privacy & Legal | Tesla Motors This goes to legal which mentions nothing about this. Even if they haven't modified any of it, they need to say what software is being used, including which version of the Linux kernel, as can be seen in this FAQ for the kernel: How to comply with GPL version 2.
So regardless at what is included and whether they have modified anything or not, they are still in violation.
- - - Updated - - -
It is definitely not a nonexistent issue. Here is a great explanation on why not to sit around and call it a non-issue: http://sfconservancy.org/linux-compliance/vmware-lawsuit-appeal.html�
Jun 10, 2015
GaryREM Regarding the listing of OSS components used, I agree there is an issue and this should easily be addressed.
But, the case you cited was clearly a serious violation because VMware had taken code and modified it extensively to work in their environment. You were implying that Tesla had done the same, but have no evidence.
Tesla needs to state what OSS is being used and I agree they need to respond to this issue now.�
Jun 10, 2015
lagann This I agree with. If they haven't modified anything then everything is good. However, we don't know that. I know that link was for the certain case, but it still explains why the GPL should be enforced and why we should fight for it. Every firmware release, including the minor ones, needs at the very list to have a list of all the included GPL'ed tools if not modified. It would be rather simple for them if that's the case, so I see no reason why they're not doing this. Security reasons are just dumb and not an excuse, and the other is just a general apathy towards the GPL, which is a terrible mindset.�
Jun 10, 2015
scaesare Did you read that article you posted? Here's the issue it addresses:
Again, using an existing OSS product without modification does not require release of private source for code running on top of that platform, ?provided you didn't modify the underlying GPL source.�
Jun 10, 2015
thebishop Well.
One can hope that they chose to go with proper free OSS that does not use the broken GPL license that tries to taint commercial software vendors code due to a political agenda by one person. There are many nice truly free alternatives (like various BSD distributions, or even -gasp- Darwin) around actually.
The root reason for GPL (except for the political agenda) was to allow end users to modify the distributed source code and deploy it in modified form on their device. In this case, it would be on a Model S car. Disregarding obvious security concerns, I don't think it would be a great idea to let end users that in general have little understanding of what a QA process entails (how c00l hackers they may be) hack their cars, it could possibly end up literally killing people. Not so good.
That being said, they should obviously give credit where credit is due, and if they have used GPL-tainted code, there should better be a cleanup project planned to remove it from anything distributed...
I must say that the proliferation of the GPL licenses is probably one of the worst things of all time to affect the OSS movement - that being said as someone who has sponsored (and open sourced several of my own) development of true open source projects with my company and strongly believe in OSS (that has respect for the needs for commercial software vendors).�
Jun 10, 2015
Twiglett Hasn't this all been covered before - but without the accusations of theft and bullying?�
Jun 10, 2015
lagann Yes but if you have been paying attention they haven't stated anything. If they haven't modified anything then they need to give a detailed explanation of what versions of what is included, THAT at least is REQUIRED by the GPL. Plus, you have NO idea if they have modified anything or not!
- - - Updated - - -
Maybe, but I brought it up again because of the shareholder meeting yesterday when Musk said that they weren't going to release any OSS because of "security" concerns, which really upset me.�
Jun 10, 2015
scaesare It might be a good idea to refrain what you accused them of in your initial post then until you have some specific evidence:
�
Jun 10, 2015
lagann Ha, to each their own. If you don't want to use it, then you don't have to. If someone doesn't want to comply with it, then don't use their software. It's not because of "one man", it's because every single developer that released code under the GPL did so at their own choosing. Seriously, it's simple, this is someone else's code, they can ask for whatever they want. The fact that you consider it a "taint" is laughable. It's only a taint if a company cuts corners by using someone else's code and not following their wishes.
- - - Updated - - -
I doubt it, there is evidence right there when Musk said yesterday that they use the Linux kernel. Whether they modified the code or not, they are not following the license attached to it whatsoever. If they aren't following the license, then yes, they are stealing the software, no question about it.�
Jun 10, 2015
Stoneymonster Knowing what we do about Mr. Musk, I'm not sure this is the right attitude and approach to get what you want.�
Jun 10, 2015
patrick42h Is there some kind of middle ground between Tesla continuing to violate the GPL and Tesla laying bare all the software it has written on top of GPL code? I don't want to see my favorite car company do something dishonest or illegal and I don't want to see their awesome software get pirated and copied all over the place.
I'm sure that when they started building the touchscreen interface, they didn't have the time or money to build from scratch. Ubuntu was fairly mature and it seemed like a good place to start in order to deliver Model S on time. Now that they have more time and more financial stability, do they ditch their Ubuntu-based system and start from scratch?�
Jun 10, 2015
Stoneymonster That's not how the GPL works. All of Telsa's own code, that they wrote themselves (this would include the UI, proprietary device drivers, car control software, etc. etc.) is theirs and can remain closed source. What GPL mandates is that if Telsa used GPL licensed code (such as the linux kernel, other utilities) and MODIFIED it for their own purposes, then they must release those modifications back to the community. A well architected embedded system based on Linux should contain very few such modifications, and so their exposure is probably quite limited. A lot of folks in industry get very excited (negatively) about what GPL implies, but in reality most things you care about are LGPL which is far more lenient as long as you use it without modification. If you don't modify the core OS and kernel, you don't have anything to release. Having said that, they should of course comply to the extent they need to, but I'd be surprised if there was a lot there.
I think the disconnect is that folks are saying "comply with the GPL, release the modifications and the list of open-source packages used", perhaps a bit vehemently, and Elon is hearing "open source the car". That's my guess.�
Jun 10, 2015
brianman Words like "stealing" are used in the first post of a thread intended to discuss the topic. This is why OSS gets branded with words like "poison", and the first victim is usually the author of the consuming product of the OSS.�
Jun 10, 2015
Stoneymonster This is what happens when ideology trumps civility.�
Jun 10, 2015
green1 I'm not sure this statement makes any sense. Tesla are the ones pirating the software (copying without reimbursing the author (where the author's requested payment method is to pass on any changes)) And yet you're worried about other people "pirating" their software to use on what exactly? anyone building a car to compete with the model S has plenty of resources to build software that's every bit as good and capable as Tesla, and your average person gains nothing by running "Tesla OS" on their PC at home.�
Jun 10, 2015
omarsultan I am sorry, I missed the part where anyone provided any evidence that Tesla "stole", "pirated", or even modified anything GPL related.�
Jun 10, 2015
dsm363 PM Neroden. This has been an issue of his for years so he might have some advice.�
Jun 10, 2015
patrick42h I was mistaken trying to get involved in this. It is clearly over my head. Please continue shredding each other over a software license.�
Jun 10, 2015
bmah Yes. There are fairly well-known ways for GPL, LGPL, and closed-source code to co-exist within a commercially-sold software system. I used to be one of the senior engineers on a commercial appliance based on Linux and we lived by these rules, which weren't arcane or hard to follow.
Going slightly off-topic, it also bears mentioning that GPL and OSS are not the same thing. There are other open-source licenses, such as the various BSD licenses, that don't require redistribution of source code under any circumstances at all. All of the open source code I've ever written was either placed in the public domain or was released under a BSD license.
Peace,
Bruce.�
Jun 11, 2015
lagann Elon has repeatedly stated that it's a Linux OS. If they have not modified the code, they have to at the very least state what they included. For instance, if they put kernel 2.6.37, they'd have to say something like "Contains Linux kernel 2.6.37 downloaded from kernel.org" kernel.org has a howto on how to comply with the license. Also, if they aren't complying to the license, then yes, they are stealing it.
Here's the howto: How to comply with GPL version 2.
- - - Updated - - -
Oh, also, Tesla is a great company. This is very shady and very unlike them, and makes the company look bad. They are a very high profile company, and should be a model to other companies on how to do it right.�
Jun 11, 2015
scaesare Incidentally, the first line of that page says:
Just saying.�
Jun 11, 2015
lagann Of course it's not legal advice. A simple howto would be a terrible idea to use as legal advice. In the event you're getting sued, don't look at a howto, talk to a lawyer! :tongue:�
Jun 13, 2015
Joules Verne I don't really get this thread. Just because Tesla uses Linux in their product doesn't mean they have to open source their proprietary value add, which is what the OP seems to be after. If that were the case, nobody would use (or support) it for commercial product development.
This is not what GPL is about, regardless of what the zealots might want to think.
It really all depends on what they did with it, and how they integrated with it, and I'm not about to make assumptions about their implementation.
Now if all you want is compliance with crediting the use of open source components, then I agree that this should be made openly available on their website. This is the crap that keeps companies like Black Duck Software in business .�
Jun 13, 2015
lagann I don't think you have read the thread. This was all discussed already... I'm just looking for compliance�
Jun 13, 2015
Chris TX Has anyone looked at Qt Linux's ToS? According to their website, if a Commercial license is used:
"If you are developing a Qt-based device, a commercial license is recommended to embed and control Qt on your device. A commercial license allows you to, for example, control your device�s user experience, build proprietary functionality on top of Qt and to lock down your device to create your own developer ecosystem. A commercial license from The Qt Company keeps your code proprietary where only you can control and monetize on your end product�s development, user experience and distribution."�
Jun 14, 2015
matbl Sure. And that solves it for qt which is one software component of a least a couple of tens.
Point is that OSS is only free to use if you follow the rules in each components license. That means you have to keep track of each of them and handle each of them.
So what Tesla must do is at least the following (assuming mostly GPL, LGPL and BSD style licenses).
1. List each OSS component and give credit.
2. Publish all changes done to each component unless the license says they don't have to (like BSD). This includes in the case of GPL any linked (static or dynamic doesn't matter) code. And since the linux kernel is GPL, this includes all drivers (unless something have changed recently in this area).
This is not something they can do to be nice. This is something that is legally mandatory.�
Jun 20, 2015
omarsultan I would suggest that until you know Tesla has violated any licensing agreement, using loaded terms like "stole", "pirated" or "shady" are in poor form.
It seems that some folks are under the impression that Linux runs the entire car--it does not, to quote JB Straubel:
This should not be a huge surprise to anyone as you can happily reboot your displays while tooling down the highway without impacting the operations of the vehicle. If everything that Tesla is doing, say the media app, sits in user space atop Qt, I am not sure there is anything that Tesla would need to disclose anything further since they (presumably) have a commercial license from Qt and are only distributing their own apps.
Do I know this for sure? No, but I am also not the one making accusations.�
Jun 20, 2015
lagann You should read the whole thread before you make misinformed comments. This was all discussed and agreed on that they are violating licenses. If they are distributing the kernel they must give at least the names and versions of all GPL code contained in the car, that's if they haven't modified it.�
Jun 20, 2015
president_ltd you seem to making the assumption they modify the kernel.
its not likely they do that as there is simply no reason to.�
Jun 20, 2015
kuttakamina I don't know why companies run away from the idea of open sourcing.
Typcial situation when people who don't understand software, are making these decisions, about software.
It's a short term win, for a lot of long term pain. It has not served anyone well to be closed.
Microsoft tried being closed, didn't work out for them.
Now Apple is doing the same mistake - and it shows. Their software is less secure, and more buggy, than Microsoft's.
Tesla, should consider open sourcing their software.
I understand it cannot be done overnight given the security requirements.
But still, its the right thing to do.
And sure there is the other part about violating GPL.�
Jun 20, 2015
matbl 1. They don't have to modify it to have to comply with its licensing terms. Distributing it also triggers those terms and although they don't have to release any code, they still have to list what they run and give credit.
2. The same applies for any other GPL, LGPL and BSD licensed component. And even on a bare linux system for embedded computing, there are at least a dozen or more... List and give credit.
3. Since linux drivers are dynamically linked to the GPL-licensed kernel, they have to open source (with GPL license) all their proprietary and modified/tweaked drivers if there are any.
This is of course only for those subsystems that run any OSS SW.
It doesn't matter if a piece of software cost a lot of money or if it's freely available for anyone to download and the source code as well. You still have to comply with the licensing agreement for each piece of software or stop using that software.
if we take JB's word for it that they run some form of linux on at least one system, it is perfectly clear that they don't comply with the licensing agreement for the linux kernel.
Then they most likely need one form of libc, which they in that case also violates the licensing agreement for.
So question is, how do we get Tesla to comply? It is much better they do that voluntarily now. Otherwise someone will sooner or later go sue them with all the negative press that will follow from that...�
Jun 20, 2015
dkonigs If anyone wants to see a good example of what I think Sarah is calling for, the Pebble Smartwatch folks have such a page on their website:
https://getpebble.com/legal/open_source�
Jun 20, 2015
Stoneymonster Curious, has there ever been a successful GPL non-compliance suit?�
Jun 21, 2015
No2DinosaurFuel Yeah i agree with op on this subject. There has been too many companies riding on oss and not giving credit or plubishing the code. As a developer, i am 100% sure they have modified something in the kernel to support all the external hardware. Heck the screen they are using requires the lcd kernel driver to be modified or newly created. If newly created, i am sure they have to wire it back up somehow to the rest of the kernel, hence modification of the kernel.
As much as i like tesla and am a tesla stock holder, i vote for them to comply with the law and release the modifications. It is only fair and potentially reduce lawsuit down the road ultimately saving tesla litigation money.
If the software is indeed not the critical stuff like others have stated, then it is all the reason for tesla to release the code. It wont be a security reason.�
Jun 21, 2015
brianman Just from reading this thread alone, I come to the opposite conclusion. YMMV, I suppose.�
Jun 21, 2015
omarsultan Just because I have the audacity to not agree with you does not mean I have not read the thread.
Great, so people with no direct knowledge of what is going on have decided that Tesla MUST be doing something wrong...don't see how that can go wrong...�
Jun 21, 2015
matbl If we make the asumption that JB Strauel is correct and the center console is running linux then we know they are not complying with the license for it. Quite simple actually...�
Jun 21, 2015
kuttakamina Care to elaborate?�
Jun 21, 2015
Chris TX If the center stack is running QT Linux (which it is) and Tesla has paid for a commercial license, they are not obligated to release anything. Did you not see the QT terms of use link I put in here?�
Jun 21, 2015
matbl I've mever said they have to release anything. Especially not applications on top of Qt. They might have to, but it is currently unknown.
What is known is that the commercial license you're talking about is for Qt, not the underlying linux base system (kernel and libraries). Those parts come with their own licenses (GPLv2 for the kernel)...�
Jun 21, 2015
omarsultan Really? Do you really think JB doesn't know what SW is running on the car he built?. Beyond that, as someone has pointed out already, Tesla is using a packaged commercial distro of Linux (Qt). If they are simply running homegrown user space apps on top of that, what are their disclosure requirements--enlighten me....�
Jun 21, 2015
Stoneymonster Qt is not a Linux distribution. It is a UI and application framework that runs on top of Linux (and Windows, and OS X, and Android and iOS). They are still responsible to disclose any GPL components (the kernel, GNU utilities, other libraries) that they use regardless of modification. If they do modify, the requirement is further to disclose the specific modifications.�
Jun 21, 2015
breser Your statement is just as much of a common misunderstanding.
From the GPL v2 (which is applicable to Linux):
Note that this has nothing to do with modification. You are obligated to do one of the three things if you ship object code. Most commercial products that ship the Linux kernel simply include a link to their website in their documentation that either has the download link directly or points you to another source external to them. I've looked off and on and Tesla never does this. If they are using the Linux kernel (modified or not) they are almost certainly violating this clause.
QT is a UI library that runs on top of many operating systems. Buying a commercial license to it does not solve the problem of the license of the Linux kernel.
For what it's worth I'm a long term Open Source Software Developer. I've participated for many years in the Open Source Initiative discussions regarding licensing (which ultimately determines what is and is not Open Source Software). I have spent many years understanding open source licenses as a result.
I don't think anyone here is calling for Tesla to release all of their source. Simply complying with the licenses of the open source software they have used is what's being asked. Which if the presumption that they're using the Linux Kernel unmodified would mean absolutely nothing proprietary is released and it ends up being nothing more than some legalese in the manual, cars interface and/or website.
If Tesla has intertwined their software in such a way that they haven't protected their proprietary bits from the license then they have made a very unnecessary mistake. I seriously doubt that anything they are doing is likely to require them to modify the kernel. Almost everything should be implemented in user space. Which does not trigger any GPL requirements because of the following lines at the very top of the COPYING file for the Linux Kernel:
�
Jun 22, 2015
lagann QT does not own the Linux kernel. They are giving a license that you can modify the QT framework without having to release anything about it. As for the Kernel, it's not like Linus can just be like "oh yeah have a new license" You would have to get permission from EVERY single contributor to the Linux kernel (as long as you are using any of their contributions, which even just the barebone Kernel would probably have several hundred at least) to agree to a new license, which is probably actually impossible for the same reason they can't change the Linux kernel to GPLv3. Basically, if they are using the kernel anywhere in the firmware, which Elon Musk has said they are doing, then they are in violation. There is no debate or question about it, it's straight up fact. The only thing that isn't "proven" yet is that the kernel is included, but there's VERY strong evidence towards it, with Elon Musk stating it multiple times, and the browser user agent says it's Linux. All your arguments show ignorance towards this, which is why I had said to read the thread. This was discussed multiple times since so many people came in to try to argue their own misunderstanding of the GPL, or OSS in general. If the kernel is included, at the very least they need to say for EACH firmware release which version is included, and that's only if they have made NO modifications whatsoever.
- - - Updated - - -
The last I had heard was that no company being sued has ever let it be brought to court. I believe they were all settled beforehand and became compliant/paid for a commercial license from the developer. This is what I've heard, though. I could be completely wrong.�
Jun 22, 2015
breser Largely because complying is so absurdly easy, especially if there are no modifications as many are asserting here.�
Jul 17, 2015
neroden They are in violation of the GPL. The Linux copyright holders are already pursuing it, but I was warned that these cases generally take 5 years or more. And Tesla hired a law firm which specifically specializes in delaying tactics. Now you know.
- - - Updated - - -
(The cases almost never go to court...)
Yep. This is why it's ridiculous that Tesla has been infringing on copyright and ripping off the work of hundreds of developers. It's really easy to comply.
I can't sue personally because I don't have any contributions to the Linux kernel. If you know someone who does, they *can* sue personally. If I were one of them, I'd ask for punitive damages because this behavior by Tesla is willful and deliberate and has no justification.
- - - Updated - - -
Yep. This is precisely what I expected Tesla to do, until they decided to be all criminal and thievy instead. I still find Tesla's behavior incomprehensible. Musk needs to fire his legal department and hire some real lawyers, who will tell him "Why don't you just DO it?"
- - - Updated - - -
We have proof that Tesla has violated the licensing agreements for the Linux kernel, repeatedly. Enough proof to convince some of the copyright holders' representatives to start the process of filing suit. "Pirated" and "Shady" are 100% correct. The crazy thing about this is how *pointlessly stupid* it is on the part of Tesla. Just release the source code for your version of the Linux kernel, complete with configuration files.
- - - Updated - - -
As a stockholder, I don't appreciate Musk exposing the company to unnecessary legal risk, and this is *extremely* unnecessary legal risk.
- - - Updated - - -
I made it very explicitly clear exactly what they needed to do, emphasizing that they did not need to open-source their own proprietary modules, when I called them the first time. And the second time, when I didn't get a call back. (I didn't get a call back the second time either.)
I'm also pretty sure the representatives of the copyright holders made it very explicit exactly what Tesla needed to do when *they* called -- I contacted them after Tesla had failed to comply with the license for roughly a year, which really should have been enough time.
If that's what he's hearing, he needs to turn his ears on.
Now, the following is merely a guess: There is some suspicion that there are problems with the nVidia drivers. nVidia has been skating very close to violating copyright repeatedly, and Tesla may have tripped up by trusting nVidia. (Never trust nVidia.) IIRC, with at least one version, you couldn't legally distribute the proprietary nVidia drivers and the Linux kernel together in binary form.
This sort of thing is why Tesla needs competent lawyers rather than the professional clowns they currently have on staff.�
Jul 17, 2015
Stoneymonster The sad truth is that the costs of non-compliance and delaying compliance are minimal and they will not make it a priority. Show me a GPL suit that ended in punitive damages.�
Jul 17, 2015
neroden There was one in Germany. I think it's about time to have one in the US. Tesla's behavior has been exceptionally egregious, since they were notified by email (by me, I think I still have the email) of their obligations prior to the manufacture of the first Model S.�
Jul 17, 2015
lagann :love:�
Jul 18, 2015
matbl The legal risk associated with this and possible future damages or other financial impact would be a good question for the Q2 earnings call. Then it would definately get some attention.�
Jul 20, 2015
FlasherZ I love the passion, however misplaced and hyperbolic, that you have on this topic. Several times now it's been pointed out that there is not one shred of evidence that Tesla is willfully violating the GPL. You say that "Tesla doesn't have a leg to stand on", yet you provide no evidence that they're willfully refusing to comply. Perhaps an e-mail from someone at Tesla saying "we don't release the source code for the GPL components that we are using" might help your case?
The topic is very nuanced and isn't as simple as "no tarball on web site, therefore VIOLATION!11!OMGWTFBBQ!!!ELEVENTYONE!!!11!!11!!!!" that you (and others) seem to be putting forth. Did they assemble their own components? Did they use a commercial distribution intact, without modification? What business relationship do they have with the creator of a distribution that may allow them to merely refer to a distribution's site? Are they sourcing a complete-with-software component from another vendor? There are many, many more questions that determine whether they are required to publish anything, or merely provide a pointer, or have no legal liability at all. You have spewed much conjecture but zero fact for three years.
Bottom line: if you have definitive proof, out with it. Otherwise, I'm sure Don Quixote could use another partner. Prove that Tesla 1) falls under the jurisdiction of GPL , but be sure you cover the cases in which it might not be required (e.g., a business partnership where by a complete component including software is sourced from another company); and 2) refuses to release to you the source (or pointer to the source) in the form of a communication from them. Just saying "a case is in the works" is BS... see groklaw.net as a more-than-sufficient defense against that one. Just saying "WE KNOW THEY USE LINUX SO THEREFORE GPL VIOLATION!!!111!!ELEVENTYOMGWTFBBQONE!!11!!" is not proper legal analysis and will earn you an F for the attempt.
Elon's comments about not releasing source was for THEIR COMPONENTS... You can argue closed-source vs. open-source until the cows come home, but conflating the two is disingenuous at best.
(And for what it's worth, I am a copyright holder to a few lines in some older Linux kernels -- for antique platforms and long retired from current sources -- as well as a few other side projects. I haven't seen any evidence that Tesla is willfully violating anything yet; I'm not saying they aren't, but I'm saying that no one here has shown a shred of evidence yet.)�
Jul 20, 2015
breser Please read this post of mine:
OSS and Tesla - Page 6
It doesn't matter where Tesla sourced the Linux Kernel they are using. They are obligated at a minimum to provide a notice of how to obtain the source code. They are obligated to provide this notice every time they distribute the object code. I've yet to ever find this notice despite looking.
Tesla also can't just offer the source code if you ask for it. The notice has to be provided with the object code. Which means when they sell the car at a minimum and possibly when they update the software (if they update the kernel in that software update).�
Jul 20, 2015
cryptyk
There is evidence that they're running Linux for at least the 17" display. This was shown with port scans using the 4-pin ethernet connector. Therefore they have to comply with GPL. Even if they are distributing unmodified versions of Linux, they also need to distribute the source code.
Pretty cut and dry.�
Jul 20, 2015
FlasherZ Actually, if it were as "cut and dry[sic]" as you say it is, then Tesla would likely have been nailed to the wall long, long ago, along with nearly 100% of IT technology distributors throughout the world. Neroden wouldn't have so many deal breakers and would be happy with his Model S. Such is not the case, however.
I still stand by my assertion that no one here, on this thread, has credibly delivered a legal analysis and proof of this license violation. All I see is a bunch of personal definitions of "distribute" to suit the authors' points of view. No one (yet) has proven that Tesla has directly "distributed" Linux in the legal sense of the license, nor has provided case citations that support their position that Tesla has distributed Linux by disproving any of the other ways in which Tesla would not have to take specific performance to advise its customers. All I have seen is people who scream "So logically, if J.B. has said Linux, Linux is on the car... and therefore... WITCH! A WITCH!" (Apologies to Sir Vladimir)�
Jul 20, 2015
cryptyk Just because the law is clear doesn't mean that more powerful entities won't take advantage of less powerful ones. Note politicians who steal musicians work for use in their campaigns. And large retailers stealing independent artists work for their t-shirt designs. And large tech firms stealing IP from startups. Ever worked at a company that uses unlicensed software? It's demonstrably and historically hard for the less powerful copyright holders to extract justice from more powerful infringers.
Not sure which part you disagree with, so here are some enumerated assertions that I believe, and that you can disagree with:
1) The Tesla runs linux for at least some subset of functionality. I don't have direct proof, but the combination of user agent and the claims from the guy who actually got FireFox running on the screen seem like reliable indicators.
2) Tesla is distributing (or conveying) linux under the legal definition of the GPLv3, section 4. This gives them the benefit of the doubt that they haven't modified it in any way.
3) Tesla is required to also distribute the Source Code associated with the build, as specified in GPLv3, section 6b. Here's the text:
[6]b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.
4) Tesla doesn't need to release source for any libraries or components built on top of the GPL code (as specified again in Section 6): "A separable portion of the object code, whose source code is excluded from the Corresponding Source as a System Library, need not be included in conveying the object code work."
5) Tesla likely has more obligations than even the above based on the protection against "tivoization". In essence, because Tesla can update the firmware, they're also required to provide a way for you to install your own custom firmware. It's more complex, especially around the definition of a User Product, but that's the intent. To support the idea, Section 6 also reads:
"If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM)."
At the end of the day, I don't really care if they comply. I kind of hope they do because I'm a software engineer and would love to look at any code they've written. That opinion is separate from what I believe is a pretty straightforward set of facts that show they're out of compliance with copyright law, though.�
Jul 20, 2015
breser GPLv3 is not relevant. Linux is only licensed under the GPLv2.
https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/COPYING
This language doesn't exist in GPLv3. Tesla can carry out the TiVo strategy of deploying an appliance (or car in this case), putting proprietary information into user space (which avoids any proprietary source code needing to be released) and making the hardware refuse to run code that is not provided by them.
However, none of those abilities excuses them of the requirements of GPL2 section 3 (as I'm sure you're aware).�
Jul 20, 2015
FlasherZ Considering that the Linux kernel is subject to GPLv2 and not GPLv3, your approach to analysis is DOA.
The "COPYING" file associated with the kernel reads the following (it's the original GPL v2, for all intent and purposes):
Section 3 is the only section applicable for unmodified source.
First you have to reconcile the language "in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above"... sections 1 and 2 talk about source code distribution and modification. If you don't modify, you haven't distributed anything "in object code or executable form under the terms of sections 1 and 2", and therefore section 3 may not apply.
And now we need to analyze the terms "copy and distribute". Does Tesla "copy and distribute" the "program" if it sources an nVidia-based touchscreen from another supplier and merely applies firmware updates as instructed by that supplier, or is Tesla required to perform the specific action in section 3? Considering that you don't see CDW, Amazon, or TigerDirect hosting Linux source code distribution because they sell HP PC's that ship with Linux, perhaps they're operating under a different legal interpretation? Perhaps the "copy and distribute" step is considered to be done by Tesla's supplier when the touchscreen is manufactured, and not Tesla itself, in which case Tesla's supplier is on the hook, and not Tesla?
If Tesla uses a base operating system that ships on its touchscreen component from another supplier, it doesn't necessarily mean Tesla has a responsibility here.
This is why I say that no one has yet provided a sufficient analysis. There are just assumptions made that because a Model S uses Linux, that Tesla is required to provide the source code. I can tell you from working with several different legal teams that this is an incorrect assumption. It is very nuanced and isn't as simple as the Stallman communists would have you believe - that because J.B. or Elon said the word "Linux", everything Tesla does is public domain.
(EDIT: I don't think the law is fully settled here. I can be wrong, and perhaps down the road we'll see a ruling that determines that cases like this *do* require the end marketer to be responsible for it. I just haven't seen it yet, and my participation with other companies in these very same processes have taught me to consider this with far more nuances. I'm not convinced Tesla has a responsibility here; even further, I'm not sure what forcing Tesla to point you at their unmodified {Debian,Ubuntu,Fedora,whatever-distribution-they-use} accomplishes other than to create more heat than light and stir up a bunch of crap. You're not going to get the source to their UI or their intellectual property, and you're going to get a run-of-the-mill standard Linux install for TEGRA3 and TEGRA2. Want to see how it works? Download Ubuntu.)�
Jul 20, 2015
breser FlasherZ, I usually respect your contributions to this board quite a bit. But you're just wrong on this stuff. Arguing with me in my area of expertise is a bit like me arguing with you about the meaning of the electrical code. It'd be a huge waste of both of our time.
Creating copies of object code is protected by copyright law in the US (and pretty much everywhere else in the world). That's settled law. The license actually says the following (emphasis mine):
I'd hope that it's obvious to you and everyone else that Tesla is creating a copy of the software every time it sells a new car and ever time it distributes an update to the cars that includes the software.
If you want to argue that the Linux Kernel is not being used by Tesla so be it. But every sign we've seen is that they are. You're entitled to that opinion.
But if you accept that Tesla is using the Linux Kernel, then they are clearly violating the licensing on the software.
Because of the way the Linux Kernel's copyright has been handled it is impossible for anyone to use it without complying with the terms of the GPLv2. Even Linus Torvalds has to comply with the license since every individual contributor continues to own their own copyright. There are certainly other software that the copyright has been handled in a different way and you might be able to buy a license from the owner that allows you to avoid the GPL. But that's not the case with the Linux Kernel.
I don't think anyone is being unreasonable in believing that Tesla is violating this licensing since they have said they are using this software and they are clearly not complying with the requirements of the license.
The requirement to provide the source code (or a notice as to where to retrieve the software) when distributing object code is not even the slightest bit controversial in the community. I've never seen someone argue that the clause is unenforceable. It does not have the legal ambiguities as the clauses about modification of the software that is tied to the interpretation of derivative works.
If we were arguing about if Tesla needed to release their own modifications, we could have a debate about if those rose to the level of creating a derivative work and thus debate if they're violating the license. But we don't even need to get this far.
If Tesla is using the Linux Kernel they are violating the license. If they aren't then they aren't.
Believe what you want on that respect.�
Jul 20, 2015
FlasherZ I'm not just coming at this from the side, I've participated on a number of open source and standards councils and their associated legal teams. I'm approaching this neither unfamiliar, uneducated nor inexperienced with this topic.
Indeed, I have. I have seen several companies declare that their redistribution of another unmodified component sourced from another organization did not bind them to distribution responsibilities, and instead left it with their supplier. Now, sometimes they covered their asses by saying "Product <x> uses technology sourced from a supplier which uses a distribution of Linux. See http://blah.example.com/linux-source/ for more information". But once again, as it involved no modification or improvement, they were just redirected to a distribution's web site.
If this were true, then neroden's incessant complaining for three years would have generated more results than what it has, and every IT integrator and distributor on the planet could be sued into oblivion. eBay sellers who sell a laptop with Linux installed could be sued for not actively maintaining a source code distribution server... etc...
"Copy and distribute" doesn't mean what everyone here wants it to mean.�
Jul 20, 2015
breser See what I've already said about CDW (it applies to Amazon or TigerDirect just as much). These resellers are complying with the license since the party that created the copy provides the required notification in their documentation and then passes it along.
I think it's really disingenuous to try and compare Tesla's role in the ecosystem to CDW and other resellers. Tesla is manufacturing and retailing the product.
Even if you want to argue that CDW et al are not copying the object code (since they don't mess with whatever is on the disk of the servers they sell) and as such aren't involved in the license issue I don't think you can make the same argument with that respect about Tesla.
But let's presume that you're right. That Tesla is only shipping the Linux Kernel that is already installed by nVidia from the factory. And let's presume that by your logic that Tesla is not violating the license by selling new cars.
This all falls apart as soon as they need to reflash a car because of a corrupted flash device. Or push out an update to fix a bug in the kernel (possibly a security bug). I think it'd be very hard to say that Tesla is not creating copies by instructing the cars to download copies onto their flash memory. You can't argue that the owners are doing this because the download process is entirely controlled by Tesla. Nevermind, the fact that in some cases Tesla employees are installing the software off their laptops hooked up to the car.
I think it is very safe to say that any argument that Tesla is not distributing the software given their actions would fail in court.
- - - Updated - - -
I think you're stretching what the distributor needs to do in those cases. If they're shipping a known distribution (say RedHat or Ubuntu) then all they really have to do is point to the source of those. The GPL allows you to rely on the source code distribution of your upstream distributor. But you're still obligated to pass that notification along.
The reason you don't see those sorts of people being sued about this is because they're passing that info along.
The reason why you haven't seen Tesla sued yet is because these sorts of things take time and most parties generally want them to comply rather than to take it to court. Many of the copyright holders generally do not have the resources to pursue this on their own so they typically have to get one of the organizations to fund something like this. Usually these sorts of issues are allowed to go on for many years before enough momentum is built up to carry the case forward.�
Jul 20, 2015
FlasherZ Well, we differ on interpretation. Only case law will prove one of those interpretations right. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, although I suggest it would be a more-heat-than-light exercise that would only distract Tesla from its own groundbreaking technology.
We may find out that Tesla has rolled its own distribution by compiling its own kernels and establishing its own init, etc.; and in that case, I'm more inclined to agree with you and support the idea that Tesla should indeed release its source, although its value is arguably zero. No one has proven Tesla does this, though - and that's the point I made earlier.
We may, instead, find out that Tesla uses a stock distribution provided by its supplier in binary form, in which case things will be more nuanced. If Tesla flashes a binary image supplied in whole by a supplier, it is still not necessarily bound to supply the source. That would bind Tesla's supplier, but not Tesla. As to your reflash argument, the DMCA included language (via CMCAA, section 17 USC 117) that limited copyright owners' rights in the case of computer maintenance or repair activities. (See Storage Tech. Corp. v. Custom Hardware Eng'g & Consulting, Inc. for more information on a case where software copies required to activate/maintain/repair a machine were judged not to be subject to copyright infringement.)
I do agree that it's simple for Tesla to make the argument go away, by publishing a simple web page. But even that takes away focus from the rest of the operations of the company.
I suspect we'll find out at some point in the future, and if proven wrong, I'll be just fine with it.�
Jul 20, 2015
lagann Lol�
Jul 20, 2015
breser I'm having a hard time seeing how distracting providing a link to some source code in some fine print can possibly be.
Distribution and init process is irrelevant. We're only talking about the kernel. There's a whole lot more software that makes up a distribution that has all manner of different licenses. Some of which may have more restrictive licenses like GPLv3 and some may have far less restrictive license like MIT. But baring seeing an actual copy of the firmware I can't comment about what licenses they may or may not be violating there. However, I feel reasonably comfortable making comments about the Linux Kernel based on their public comments about using it.
That clause of the law is all about necessary copies of the software that exist in memory when executing software and for backups (which I'm not really going to talk about). For instance on a typical computer the object code is read from disk and into memory and is then executed out of memory (that's exactly what your case was about). I'm unaware of anyone successfully arguing that such a clause allows new software to be installed on a system for which no valid license exists.
I'd also point out the fact that the maintenance and repair section points out that the "activation" copy is only allowed if the existing copy installed on the system is lawful.
If Tesla is copying the Linux Kernel onto the cars without complying with the license terms of the GPL then the copies aren't lawful. If Tesla is just shipping hardware that already had the software on the car then the maintenance and repair clause of �117 only gets them out of copyright claims from activating the car while the doing maintenance and repair on the software that was included when the car was shipped. But does not allow them to update that software because a new copy created by Tesla would not be lawful if they weren't complying with the license (and it's my belief that Tesla's firmware update process necessitates Tesla making a copy).
Quite frankly, it's much harder to jump through many hoops to be legal while avoiding complying with the source code availability clauses of the GPL than it is to simply comply with the license. I honestly can't fathom why anyone would go to so much effort to try and avoid complying.�
Jul 20, 2015
drees I'm not sure why you keep on insisting tossing red herrings around. Neither one of those arguments have anything to do with Tesla complying with the GPL. They also very likely ship BSD software, and are violating it's license as well.
Go ahead and look up your user agent. You'll find that the browser users WebKit which is licenced under the LGPL: The WebKit Open Source Project - GNU Lesser General Public License
It's pretty clear that Tesla is not under compliance with the LGPL.
What you are arguing is that if someone sells me some open source software, and then I then redistribute it, I am able to claim ignorance and not comply with the GPL? That's like downloading songs over bittorrent and then telling the record company's lawyers to go after those other bittorrent users instead since they never gave you the license terms.�
Jul 20, 2015
breser That's a fair point since they need to provide at least a copy of the license with BSD licenses.
Yup, they've got the same issue with WebKit. But it's harder to say that they're actually using WebKit. Pretty much every browser says it is Mozilla. So it's possible they're just using a browser rendering engine that is compatible with the features of WebKit. Not entirely likely, but possible. Maybe Tesla has explicitly said they're using WebKit. I don't recall though.
No he's saying if someone downloads some software on a flash drive. Then gives that flash drive to someone else and then that person gives it to you, then the person that handed you the flash drive is not obligated to comply with the license. He may very well be right. Because copyright law is about making copies. Passing around that flash drive doesn't create a new copy.
However, that's a very very narrow and difficult crack to fall into.�
Jul 20, 2015
FlasherZ You're not looking at this in the right way. In this case, for the purpose of 17 USC 117, Tesla's supplier may be supplying the "machine" and Tesla may be the maintenance and repair company who - in order to reflash it - is temporarily copying the software for repair purposes.
You're not considering that Tesla may not be the one producing the Linux image that goes onto the media control unit. You're making an assumption that Tesla is copying /boot/vmlinuz to the filesystem, and you're not considering that instead, the supplier might offer binary firmware images to Tesla. Tesla may not have the source code to hand out, or Tesla may have a contractual agreement with its supplier not to disclose its source code, even if it does have it. And, as I've pointed out several times today, Tesla may not be the one doing the "copying" or "distributing" in the legal sense of those words.
The mobile phone environment is another example of this. AT&T takes a mobile phone with hardware and software provided by other vendors, installs its own apps on top of the base, and sells it. The suppliers to AT&T provide the open source notice to the consumer, not AT&T. (An example is Samsung, via opensource.samsung.com.) AT&T does not provide access to the source code and instead tells you to contact the manufacturer for information. Samsung publishes the open source information in its user manuals. If Tesla receives the base operating system from a supplier as part of the unit, then the supplier is on the hook for GPL licensing, not Tesla.
Now, all of that said, this is becoming a lot of rehash. I understand this is a strongly religious topic for some people. We may never know what the courts think about the license, because - as you say, breser - it seems pretty simple to just deal with it. Tesla may just put up a notice pointing at its supplier, or obtain a contract amendment, just to deal with the religious nature of the topic. That doesn't mean that they were out of compliance, of course, it just means they wanted to shut people up.�
Jul 20, 2015
breser We've talked about if Tesla is violating Open Source licenses. But I want to look at what Tesla is doing to comply with the Open Source licenses at current.
This is the copyright page in the current version of the manual (same as what's displayed on the 17" screen, and is known by the version stamping of 6.2_das_na_r21050326_en_us).
As you can see this includes a link to the URL:
http://www.teslamotors.com/opensource
Which ultimately redirects to:
https://www.teslamotors.com/about/legal#opensource
There is no Open Source anchor anyone on this page. In fact there's no mention of Open Source anywhere on this page.
It does provide privacy information, an email contact policy, their patent pledge, website terms of use, recall info, human rights and conflict minerals policy, and security vulnerability information.
But absolutely nothing about software licensing.
My guess is this should be included but it's been forgotten for some reason. Tesla can and should do better here.�
Jul 20, 2015
FlasherZ You, too, are making the assumption that Tesla has the full source code and control over that source used in the media control unit.
Let's talk about your hypothetical for a minute. You're the manufacturer of electric bicycles. You purchase - from Control Systems, Inc. - a speed control module which consists of a couple of hardware sensors and a control unit. Software for the control unit is provided to you in binary format by Control Systems, and you make available (to your customers) the tool and image provided by Control Systems to update the firmware when they fix bugs for you. But Control Systems has a nasty little secret - they dare to use emacs to run the speed sensor! In this case, it is not your responsibility for the breach, nor would you be held liable for GPL violations, for selling your bicycle with that control unit attached.
I haven't looked at the WebKit case, but it seems that it might be more applicable to the case since the browser does seem to be Tesla's direct code.
- - - Updated - - -
That's a good find. Perhaps they'll finish the page.�
Jul 20, 2015
breser I consider exactly those scenarios. I said that the law would allow Tesla to copy only the exact version that was included on the hardware when shipped by the supplier (assuming the supplier is complying with the GPL and thus the version on the hardware when received by Tesla is licensed). The law doesn't permit Tesla to take a different version of the software and copy it on the hardware just because they are repairing it. That's the entirely purpose of the language in the law that I highlighted in my previous post.
It takes a remarkable amount of twisting of the language of that law that the case law you cited doesn't support to come to the conclusion you have. The company in the case law you cited repairing the machine was running the machines and inspecting the software and pulling out error codes to be able to know how to repair it. They were not putting new versions of the software on the hardware.
In order for Tesla to stay legal under the scenario you have presented Tesla would be locked into a single version of the kernel that they happened to ship when the car was new. Honestly, I find it difficult to believe that Tesla is going to such extremes just to avoid putting a little text up on their website.
You're jumping through a mighty amount of assumptions about what I'm assuming when I'm actually considering the scenarios you're describing.
We know that Tesla is using Tegra 2 and Tegra 3 systems. Linux for Tegra as provided by nVidia is located here:
Linux For Tegra Archive
nVidia is their supplier. nVidia is publishing the source code to the kernel. They also publish binaries.
The supplier can't prevent Tesla from disclosing the Linux Kernel source code. The supplier is obligated under the GPL to provide that. They are not allowed to place additional restrictions on that source code. Note the following from the GPL (emphasis mine):
From what I've heard about Tesla they are very inclined to do as much as they possible can do in house. The infotainment system is almost entirely custom produced boards for Tesla. I find it almost impossible to believe that Tesla is not doing their own copying. I can't imagine that they wouldn't be shipping images of the full filesystem that includes everything for the boot volume (including Tesla's proprietary user space software) for installation on the computers in the car as part of their production process. Even if the software is copied onto the hardware by some other supplier and thus Tesla is not technically copying it at the time of the production of the car, I believe that the update process that Tesla follows necessitates them making a copy.
There are two ways people get updates on their car.
1) Receive an over the air update initated and controlled by Tesla (by 3G or Wifi). Owners have zero control over when this download happens and as such I would argue that it is Tesla doing the downloading and thus creating the copy.
2) A Tesla employee hooks up a laptop to the car and copies the software from the laptop to the car. This is even a stronger case of Tesla making the copy.�
Jul 20, 2015
FlasherZ I'm giving several different examples of reasons why Tesla may not be required to distribute source code directly; I'm not saying that's what they're definitively doing. My initial post this morning (which I'm beginning to regret ever posting) was simply to point out that no one here has posted a shred of credible proof that Tesla has violated the license. There have only been assumptions made about how Tesla manages the code.
Perfect. So, just like the AT&T/Samsung mobile phone case, nVidia supplied the hardware+software unit to Tesla and is responsible for offering the source code. They have done so. So... what's the concern with the license again? I'm confused.
It's not about what you've heard, or assumptions made based upon how Linux is used elsewhere. It's not about how you find something "almost impossible", because that's not proof and wouldn't stand up. When someone provides credible proof that Tesla is responsible for the operating system code, then I'll agree with you. Until then, there are still several very plausible cases in which Tesla would not be responsible for distributing source code per the GPL.
And now, as we seem to be circling again, I'll just simply take leave and let this thread return to the Tesla bash fest full of assumptions about Tesla's handling of source code.�
Jul 20, 2015
breser Look you're thinking up all sorts of very unusual situations to find reasons why Tesla might not be violating the license. You're also trying to twist the law to say things it doesn't (particularly the maintenance and repair clause). You're working from the presumption that they aren't unless you have definitive evidence that they are. Not even someone pulling a copy of the firmware and finding that the Linux Kernel is indeed in use is sufficient for you because you want to find a way for Tesla not to be wrong. I'm also inclined to believe there is an awful lot of "I said something and now I really don't want to be wrong." Basically I think the only thing that will change your mind is if someone actually sues Tesla and wins.
I'm looking at a reasonable interpretation of the information we have. I think the scenarios that you are coming up with are unlikely. I find your interpretation of the law to be inconsistent with my understanding of it and the relevant case law. I'm not inclined to just presume that Tesla is doing the right thing. I have this opinion because I've seen Tesla do things that are not the right thing. I've pointed them out, and at least in my case Tesla has resolved the situation. I give them a lot of credit in that respect. But my bubble that Tesla can do wrong most certainly has been busted after I bought the first car with them. So in my opinion I take a more nuanced approach to what they are doing. In this particular case I think it is likely they are violating the license. That disappoints me, but I'm also not feeling terribly damaged by it so I'm not hassling Tesla about it.
In a court of law Tesla would indeed have the presumption of innocence. But I'm not obligated to give them that in my opinion and discussion on a public forum (the veritable court of public opinion). At the same point if this was a court of law the Plaintiff would have discovery and would have the opportunity to require Tesla to turn over their source, object code and procedures to find out for sure. You could in that case get a great deal more proof than we have.
But we don't have that level of authority to find out for sure. So your effort to demand absolute proof in my opinion is just an effort to shut down the conversation. Create an impossible to reach standard and claim that everyone that can't reach it should shut up. I don't tend to think that sort of standard should prevail on a discussion forum. Applying the same standard to every other discussion would mean that we can't possibly have a discussion. So much of what we talk about includes a healthy dose of speculation and effort to apply logic to the scenario.
I've tried to have a reasonable conversation with you about this. I've tried to entertain your notions of what Tesla could be doing to be shipping the Linux Kernel without violating the GPLv2. But I've found that the substantive points of my responses are ignored and you simply repeat your argument. Given your statement about regretting your initial post I suspect you're looking for a way out of this conversation, but just can't stand to lose.
So consider this post an admission that I can't prove to a degree that will satisfy you that Tesla is violating the license.
Look you won. Now you can go back to whatever it is you wanted to be doing right now instead.
�
Jul 20, 2015
Seattle Remember when linksys wouldn't release their linux mods for years? Eventually they gave in. They probably thought they were protecting their proprietary work and didn't want to release the sources. It looks like this went on from about 2003 to 2009. Here's a typical article (cisco bought linksys) - Cisco settles GPL lawsuit with FSF - InternetNews:The Blog - Sean Kerner - InternetNews.
This is going to be like Linksys, probably Tesla doesn't want to release their mods because they want to protect their proprietary hardware systems from people modding the car, and also want to make it harder to hack into someone else's car. It's virtually certain they used linux.�
Jul 21, 2015
matbl nope. Section 1 is also about unmodified source.
And one more thing.
arguing about US law is somewhat irrelevant unless you look up all the laws regarding this in all the countries the car is sold in...�
Oct 22, 2015
breser Now there's evidence. The guys that hacked the Tesla and downloaded the firmware say the Instrument Cluster and the Center Display run Linux:
Hacking a Tesla Model S: What we found and what we learned | Lookout Blog�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét