Oct 20, 2012
neroden I'm asking this of anyone who's received delivery.
Tesla is legally required to provide the source code, or a written offer to provide source code, for the GPL-licenced components of the firmware. As you all know, Tesla has not done so. (Correct me if I'm wrong, of course --)
I can put you in contact with the people who have the power make sure that Tesla obeys its legal commitments, and I would like to do so.
Please contact me if you would like to assist. You will mostly be searching your documents to verify whether Tesla gave you source code or an offer to produce source code.
If nobody else volunteers, I'll be making sure Tesla obeys its legal commitments when I get my car. But it would be better to have someone who's received a car early do this. The fewer cars which Tesla has ships in violation of copyright law, the better for Tesla Motors.
Thank you.�
Oct 21, 2012
EarlyAdopter Dude. Seriously? Do you not think Tesla already has enough issues at the moment, between, you know, trying to make the damn cars to begin with, no doubt having to sue their suppliers for breach of contract to deliver quality parts, and the god awful NADA lawsuits in 4 states???
I'm all for free software believe me, and in that I do mean free as in liberty, not free as in beer, but please. Just. Stop.
Besides which, it's unlikely they made any changes to the kernel or GNU user space programs. Anything proprietary they built as separate programs they have no obligation to release - this no doubt is the case with their car control systems. So all your efforts would likely result in is a plain vanilla copy of a standard distro. Woopdie friggin do.�
Oct 21, 2012
FlasherZ This movement (as small as it is) reminds me of the ADA lawsuit abuse that's going on. There are some who get their kicks on the power trip, with zero effect. Tesla isn't the abuser here; while Stallman's rather eccentric and extreme views would have you believe that every single piece of software in the world should have source code available, economic reality simply doesn't permit that.
As EA said, it's very highly unlikely that Tesla developed their own code as modifications to existing GPL pieces that would require them to disclose the meat of the car's code. Instead, as EA said, you'll get a copy of Linux 2.x or 3.x kernel code perhaps with a slight modification that allows them to hook their own (non-GPL). You'll get a copy of the source code to GNU utilities (woo!) that are already available from thousands of mirrors around the globe.
...and in the end, all the posturing and noise-making will be unproductive heat, producing less than a single lumen of the light of productivity.�
Oct 21, 2012
strider I second EA's post. I'd rather Tesla engineers fix bugs instead of packaging busybox for you.�
Oct 21, 2012
agileone It could very well be something like this : Linux For Tegra | NVIDIA Developer Zone�
Oct 21, 2012
widodh I agree with neroden d that they should release it, but I think this is not the time.
I'm a open source guy, I work daily on multiple GPLv2 projects and I think that every company should meet it's legal requirements. Cut Tesla some slack however, they are busy building cars!
Hopefully they just make a "open source" page on their website at some point where we can all download a copy of the 3.x kernel and some other GPL libraries.�
Oct 21, 2012
markb1 Of course Tesla should be held to the terms of the license agreement, but it's a little premature to talk about "making sure Tesla obeys its legal commitments". It's very possible the car comes with some info about getting the source code. I have no reason to assume it doesn't. Why not just ask Tesla?�
Oct 21, 2012
kevincwelch I'm not sure what the real intent is here, but it seems as though it is less of wanting to know the source code because of curiosity and because one wants to continue to develop the code and more of holding the gun to Tesla's head in a moment when everything else is so much more critical.
How about you let Tesla fix the existing problems, continue to trouble shoot some of the newer problems owners, etc. are identifying and get the damn cars out?�
Oct 21, 2012
Norbert I'd guess the intent is to teach Tesla a lesson.�
Oct 21, 2012
ddenboer If I was in charge of the OS and firmware at Tesla, the first thing I would do is get rid of anything with the GPL virus attached. Perhaps go to FreeBSD, or from a security POV, OpenBSD.
And I agree with most others here, asking Tesla to release this at this time is a waste of their efforts at a critical moment. But again, whoever is in charge should have understood the ramifications of attaching themselves to the virus.�
Oct 21, 2012
NigelM You seem very eager to find something (no offence intended), but why not just write Tesla and ask?�
Oct 21, 2012
SCW-Greg Yeah I would agree with your approach Nigel... the tone is a bit hostile / not constructive.�
Oct 21, 2012
aviators99 I certainly *hope* they made kernel changes. The "vanilla" kernel is not well-suited for real-time applications like this one. But I have no idea what kernel they used.�
Oct 22, 2012
PureAmps I have worked on several commercial products that use Linux and know many others in the industry that work on commercial Linux-based products including some of the early TiVo developers. No commercial software development organization is going to expose their unique intellectual property to the GPL. For example, TiVo needed a custom filesystem for their DVR, but rather than write it as a kernel module that would be subject to the GPL, they exposed a few kernel hooks and wrote the entire thing as a user process that was not subject to the GPL. So any request for TiVo's GPL modified code would only provide some new kernel hooks that would be useless to you without the non-GPL source code.
I have no knowledge of Tesla's hardware/software architecture, but I can assume the car is quite complex with dozens of micro-controllers and processors. But I'd bet money that anything having to do with the drivetrain, safety (braking/airbags, etc), is not using Linux at all. Linux is probably only used for the displays and all of the real value-add will certainly have been written as a user process and not subject to the GPL.
Embedded Linux systems are fairly mature at this point, so they probably haven't even done that much kernel work and heavily leverage existing work done by others. For example, most cars use the CAN bus to communicate with the car's micro controllers, and Volkswagen open sourced a Linux driver ages ago:
SocketCAN - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
While Tesla should demonstrate good copyright hygiene by releasing their GPL tainted code (if any), it would be of little or no value to us as end users.
So what's the point again?�
Oct 23, 2012
kevincwelch I don't think there was one, really. Just to point another finger at Tesla...�
Oct 23, 2012
drees He has no legal right to ask for source until he has received a copy of the software (aka, his car).
I'm a bit surprised at all the people who are defending Tesla. I suspect that most of these people have not written any GPL software themselves. Tesla should know better than to violate software licenses - didn't they ship GPL code with the Roadster as well?
It is Tesla's legal responsibility to provide source for any GPL software shipping in the car and any modifications to said GPL software. If Tesla doesn't like the terms of the license - they are free to use other software instead.�
Oct 23, 2012
bonnie I think it's more that people are questioning 1) if there is even a violation, 2) why it matters, and 3) wishing the focus would be on getting out cars instead of stirring up problems. That's how I read this thread, anyway.�
Oct 23, 2012
kevincwelch Having not written any GPL software excludes me from defending Tesla? I think not wrt this issue. It's not defending Tesla per se; it's acknowledging that the request was more malignant than one made in the spirit of fairness and openness. And, it came during an inopportune moment.
Agreed.�
Oct 23, 2012
vfx Some world class programmers have been driving the Roadster for 4 years now without code. And the world is working just fine.�
Oct 23, 2012
drees JB Straubel (CTO) has stated that they use Linux.
It opens up the car to many user-modifications which otherwise would not be possible.
This is just another problem that Tesla needs to address. It's really is quite simple to fix. Or it could bite them in the arse.
This topic has been covered before: Copyright (and Libel) Discussion�
Oct 23, 2012
jaanton Other than mild curiosity, I don't think there is anything here of interest. It's not like a car is a $50 network hub you can hack. I would not drive nor want to ride in a car with user modified software. I'm sure there's just an embedded linux thing with various CAN and other bus interfaces and some user level software to manage the display. Probably all stuff you can just download except for the user level stuff. Yawn.�
Oct 23, 2012
PureAmps drees, I'm not really interested in getting into a big debate here, but you are making a lot of assumptions about what one could do with Tesla provided GPLed source code.
As I stated in my previous post, Tesla is only obligated to provide the components that are licensed under GPL and any modifications they made to those components. So at most, I suspect you may get the source code for the kernel used to run the touch-screen display and the tool chain that goes along with it. But none of the actual software that controls the car or provides the user interface would be provided, as it is proprietary software and not required to be licensed under the GPL.
I also hope that Tesla has locked down the hardware/software so that only authorized software digitally signed by Tesla Motors can run on the vehicle. Considering that the vehicle is updated over-the-air, I hope they have very good security in place to prevent hacking or malicious software updates. The last thing I would want is to be driving my vehicle with my family in the car and have some half-wit teenage hacker disable the passenger airbag for the "lulz". So it is unlikely you will be able to install a customized version of the software in any case. See Tivoization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This open/closed system debate has been beaten to death before, but this is a $100k 4600 lb. motor vehicle, not a few hundred dollar DVR or cell phone. So let's keep the hacking to the fun little non-lethal devices, and instead ask Tesla nicely for an app SDK.�
Oct 23, 2012
drees I see.
So since no-one can imagine how it might be useful it doesn't matter that Tesla is breaking the law by failing to follow their end of the license for software they agreed to use.
OK.
�
Oct 23, 2012
bonnie If we're going to squabble, we might as well use the source article: Tesla CTO Talks Model S, Batteries and In-car Linux | PCWorld
�
Oct 23, 2012
dsm363 What percentage of people really care about this? They just want their car to work and to enjoy it. As long as Tesla didn't steal code from another company then I'm fine with it. You should feel free to request what you think you have the right to see and see where it goes from there.�
Oct 23, 2012
Beavis You people serious? This is a vehicle that weighs 4,700 pounds and goes 0-60 in 4.3 seconds. You want to hack it?�
Oct 23, 2012
NigelM That's quite a statement. Do you have your car already? Did you ask for the source code?�
Oct 23, 2012
bonnie I don't think anyone here wants to hack it, they just want to know the right to hack it is established. In the immortal words of my then teenage son, "Mom, as long as there are bored teenage boys not old enough to drive, code is gonna get hacked."
I can only imagine what will happen when that code is on the car they're not driving. Oy.�
Oct 23, 2012
ckessel I want them to release what's required by the various open source licenses just because I think that's important.
I'm interested in an API to program against, but I'm not likely to pour through the code itself unless I have a problem to solve. I love coding, but I've got to have a problem in mind or it's like reading the dictionary.�
Oct 23, 2012
wycolo > JBS: That's a key point. The whole entertainment system, those touchscreens, all of the applications you might load are totally separate from the propulsion of the car. In fact you could, if you had to, turn off the screens in the car while driving and the car still drives just fine. You couldn't see your Google Map, but you could still drive and stop and do everything else. [bonnie1194]
Thank you Bonnie for pulling that up. If I can switch that 17in screen over to my media player without affecting the System in any way, that is good news. Figured as much but never quite sure about those interactive controls derived from touch screens and how they might affect the System.
--�
Oct 23, 2012
Norbert I don't think the Linux source will include Tesla's API. There ought to be layers between the Linux level which is subject to any non-Tesla copyright, and the API for custom apps.
That seems blatantly wrong. The OS itself needs to be protected against modifications. If GPL required the possibility to mess with the OS, then Tesla would need to use something non-GPL.�
Oct 23, 2012
vfx Did I miss something? Tesla has said they are going to allow for outside Apps to work with the car. That's probably a year away or so but that should keep code addicts happy for a while.�
Oct 23, 2012
stopcrazypp People are defending Tesla because there are a lot more important issues and getting a copy of the source code (which would only include the Linux kernel and kernel modifications, NOT the entire source code for the entire Tesla OS, so it won't actually be very useful for figuring out how to write an application for the Tesla OS) is very, very far down on the list. It seems like an issue being raised just to raise an issue.
As for legal trouble Tesla can get into, I doubt the Linux copyright holders would bear down on Tesla any time soon (they are the only ones who have to legal right to sue Tesla, not any user). The entire GPL legal situation is extremely murky and enforcement is virtually non-existent (see closed source Linux video card drivers for an example).�
Oct 24, 2012
FlasherZ Sorry, the release of a stock Linux 3.0 kernel with 12 lines added, if even that, that call hooks in a private, non-GPL kernel module, as well as the source code to fileutils, coreutils, etc. does nothing to open up the car to "user modifications". It doesn't teach you anything about the car's code. Most importantly, using the GPL'ed kernel and userspace utilities *does not require Tesla to GPL its own code*. Stallman would like that, and for you to believe otherwise, but it's nothing but BS.
This is nothing but ADA-like nuisance behavior. This is where those who don't understand the GPL and the lawsuits typically come out -- the consumer of the product (the car) won't get anything else that he can't get today. Lawsuits and threats against companies that use source code as-is don't do anything to further the industry. I suspect there are people drooling at the mouth to "catch" Tesla here and generate some money for themselves and their lawyers, like the Busybox developers, while doing nothing at all to further the goals of the free software industry.
- - - Updated - - -
This is an example of the misunderstanding behind the requirements of the GPL with relation to these types of things. It is NOT a GPL violation for Linux video card drivers to be closed; the only thing that must be released is code, if any, that is required for the kernel to do anything special for the device. With the kernel in its current state, in almost every case this isn't even needed anymore. Today, you can create a new piece of hardware, write your own proprietary driver for the non-standard bits, and not even need to offer anything but the stock Linux kernel as source.�
Oct 24, 2012
alset Thanks FlasherZ. Finally someone that understands how GPL applies to a car using the Linux OS.
It is almost certain that the method by which Tesla will allow anyone to integrate "modules" into the entertainment system will have nothing to do with GPL or modifying Linux. They will likely create supported APIs to allow integration of widgets, likely by using a standardized method to do this (e.g. Java sandboxed apps ala Android). I can't see them allowing for customization outside of the entertainment system.�
Oct 27, 2012
stopcrazypp Greg Hartman from Novell said "closed source Linux kernel modules" AKA closed source Linux drivers, may be illegal under copyright law because they are derivative works (not tested in court though). Kororaa was accused of violating the GPL by distributing installed closed source video card drivers with the Linux kernel. Tesla seems to fit the same model (they probably have written some custom drivers or included some closed source drivers to work with the hardware in the car).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_hardware_and_FOSS
Tesla's OS, like alset mentions, is likely very similar to how Android is structured (as in Linux underneath and something else on top for applications, not necessarily Java) except Android is open source (Tesla's OS is not).�
Oct 27, 2012
Norbert However Greg Hartman is not a legal authority, but "another kernel developer" who "commented".
Personally, I find it a bit difficult to accept the notion that using open source software (Linux) might require a car manufacturer to open source the code accessing the car's special hardware. That also doesn't seem to be "derivative work" except *perhaps* in some abstract technical sense (if written as a kernel module and using some dynamic library or whatever).
To me it would seem to be invading the authoring rights of those who write software on top of Linux. It must be their *freedom* to open source, or not, their own intellectual achievements. It is *their* intellectual work to which *they* have the copyright, not Richard Stallman's. If the above were the case, it would make me hope that GPL, or any other license that limits the freedom of people to exercise their own copyright for their own work, will never rule the world.�
Oct 27, 2012
strider WILD speculation on your part. They are using NVIDIA Tegra chips and so are most likely using NVIDIA's drivers to run the screens, not their own. I don't see them doing anything w/ the infotainment system that would require proprietary drivers.
I would assume that the only mods they've made to GPL software (if any) would be to add hooks for their stuff like FlasherZ and others posted.�
Oct 28, 2012
rcc If I was in Tesla's shoes, I wouldn't care about restricting access to proprietary drivers or the base OS that their software runs on. There's not lot of intellectual property value in drivers these days and they probably haven't made major changes to the OS.
I would care about restricting access to the source code for the various pieces of software that control the car. That's a whole new software platform. The value of that intellectual property is huge.
I would also ensure that the car would only run the versions of the software that I produced and authenticated. So that even if someone got access to the kernel or the full software suite and modified it, the car wouldn't run the modified software. This is a safety issue. You don't want a software-controlled car to run software you haven't tested and blessed.
This kind of security is possible using Linux (GPL2). Tivo does this. The Tivo-modified Linux kernel is still "free" in that anyone can see it, modify it and use it on their own. But a Tivo box is designed so that it will run only Tivo-generated Linux kernels. Note that the GPL3 license was intentionally designed to make this behavior illegal. But Linux is distributed under the GPL2 license and that isn't likely to change.
GPL2 also allows Tesla to withold access to software they wrote that runs on top the Linux kernel.
Bottom line:
1) With GPL2, you can get a copy of the Linux kernel that Tesla uses and even build your own version. But if Tesla has designed their h/w and the rest of their s/w correctly, the car won't run it. And if you somehow manage to crack that protection and your software becomes partially responsible for a fatal accident, you are so your own it won't be funny. Your warranty will be void. If the protection was hard to crack, Tesla's legal liabilities will be zero. You will certainly be sued in civil court. Your insurance company will almost certainly try and declare you in violation of your policy and refuse to cover you. And you'll be lucky if you're not brought up on criminal charges.
2) Tesla is under no obligation to provide you with source code for the application software it wrote that runs on top of the Linux kernel. And that software is the secret sauce that manages the car, engine, battery pack and charging system.
3) If #1 weren't the case, no one in their right mind would use Linux as a base OS for an embedded system where a software bug can kill people.�
Oct 28, 2012
stopcrazypp My only point there was that the legality of it has not been tested in court. The point of my whole comment was that some of the issues discussed here are not 100% clear cut simply because the Linux copyright holders have not been aggressive in enforcing the copyright/GPL provisions. There are other companies that use GPL that are a lot more aggressive.
That would fall under the latter part of my comment: "included some closed source drivers to work with the hardware in the car". AFAIK the Tegra 3 drivers are not open source and NVIDIA has only release documentation on the 2D part of the engine (for Tegra in general). Anyways, I don't want to drive the thread off-topic. My main point was that given the relatively lax approach the Linux people have taken in terms lawsuits based on the GPL (maybe on purpose so as to not scare away people using it), I find it unlikely Tesla will have one from them anytime soon, so this is not a high priority legal issue at this point.�
Oct 28, 2012
Doug_G Also bear in mind that Tesla doesn't use any operating system for the embedded processors that operate the car. Linux is used for the touchscreens, not the guts of the car�
Oct 28, 2012
drees No one is required to write software based on GPLd code. If they choose to do so, they are required to abide by the rules of the license granted to them. In any case, they never lose their Copyright rights. The GPL was never intended to grant freedom to software developers - it was intended to grant freedom to the people who receive GPLd software.
That's because anyone who has been caught violating the GPL and pressed on the issue has always come around and complied with the license before it got to that point.�
Oct 28, 2012
Norbert On a more technical level, it should be possible to use an existing generic CAN-bus driver (for example), which is (or would be) part of standard Linux, so that no proprietary software is needed at the kernel level at all. That driver would need to allow Tesla to create a library which provides an API for third-party apps.
However such a driver would need to be configurable in such a way that non-Tesla apps cannot access the CAN-bus driver directly. Or something in that direction.
Regarding GPL/Linux, it sounds like they have not yet found an acceptable solution for kernel modules, and as if GPL3 is going in the wrong direction. They should come up with something much better, more flexible, if they intend to "proceed" towards "world domination".
Totally agree (in so far as your description of #1 reflects the facts).
- - - Updated - - -
In a world of limited options, that is a very limited truth, i.e. a non-truth. Especially if Linux is becoming a market leader in areas such as Supercomputers and/or embedded devices.
*Perhaps*, but that sounds like a rather self-serving argumentation (not by you, but by the GPL people), and is not necessarily the sign of something good going on. Not at all.
Again, that is not necessarily a sign of something good happening.�
Oct 28, 2012
rcc I think it's not currently clear if a Linux kernel loadable module can be non-GPL'ed. I believe it's pretty clear that new applications and libraries used by those apps can be non-GPL.
As for the Tivoization trick, that is clearly legal because Tivo did it and Stallman/FSF came up with GPL3 in response. Google "Tivoization" or check out Tivoization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for more details, particularly Linus Torvald's stance on GPL/GPL2. Lots of people were very pissed off at Tivo. I'd be willing to bet large amounts of money that if the Tivo trick had violated GPL2, Stallman would have sued rather than develop GPL3.
And as for the insurance companies, check out the fine print on your policy. The details will vary from company to company and state to state but in general, insurance companies will treat cars with "non-standard" modifications differently. How different will depend on the modification. But if you replaced the factory anti-lock brake system with your own customized version, I suspect most companies would either refuse to cover you or raise your rate sky high because your risk profile is now very different. And if you get into an accident with coverage "X" and after the fact, your insurance company determines that you should have bought coverage "Y" instead, you will be hosed. They will refuse to cover you because you didn't have the right coverage in effect.
Just for laughs, try asking your insurance company what they'd do if you replaced some of the core software in you car with your own software and see what they say. Or were going to modify the anti-lock brake system. Make very sure to tell them the changes are your own custom mods, not modifications produced by an established tuner shop like Dinan, etc.
So while I'm sure you can get the Linux source, maybe even with all the drivers, it won't do you any good. Tesla almost certainly has set things up so that you won't be able to load your customized software onto the car. And if you manage to bypass the protections, the cost of insuring will car will go through the roof, assuming that anyone is willing to insure it at all.
And if you get into an accident and an arguable case can be made that your software was responsible, there's a good chance you'll be sued. And if the accident is gruesome enough or the DA feels like making an example out of you, they'll try and prosecute you for criminal negligence, manslaughter or something similar.�
Oct 28, 2012
drees It's pretty clear that directly linked modules are not allowed - but as someone said before you can work around this by creating a GPLed module that provides an API for your non-GPL code to interface with. Nvidia and AMD do this for example with their closed-source video drivers.
Stop spreading this myth. Linux (and the GPL) have nothing to do with the core car's systems as far as anyone can tell - only the infotainment system.
Could you hack the infotainment system to mess with other systems in the car? Probably by making it spam the CAN bus system. But you're not going to be hacking the ABS system here - that code is most likely embedded into a dedicated hardware controller.�
Oct 28, 2012
Jason S What is the point of having the source anyhow? I know I can get the Tegra3 SDK plus drivers, and that'll get me pretty close to the same starting point as Tesla... then what? I'm supposed to load my own stuff into the system somehow and... do what?
Ok, let's say I did get the source. Now what? Maybe I can work up a way to do MP3 playlists and then I need to release that work back to the open source and Tesla can use it on their general release? Is that the idea? Is that what you are proposing?�
Oct 29, 2012
FlasherZ You're right. /usr/src/COPYING has a specific preamble from Linus that states the kernel GPL doesn't cover programs that use the UNIX/POSIX userspace API, and it's been fairly well-tested in cases. Firmware is also well-tested -- the mere fact a device driver sends a message to a hardware device doesn't GPL-poison the firmware. The extension of the ABI/API concept to the kernel ABI/API for LKM's, however, is still a gray area. Some lawyers think that a kernel GPL challenge of a LKM because it needs kernel header files to link would be "laughed out of the courtroom", and others believe the derived-work argument would be successful.
There was one hell of an argument on linux-kernel about 10 years ago where Linus spelled out his positions on it, and some posts that have refined his views since. The most pertinent posts and opinions over the years are collected here:
http://yarchive.net/comp/linux/gpl_modules.html
There are some norms that are established, where case law is settled. Firmware is safe and protected. User-space is safe and protected. So, what you do is put your brains in the firmware and user-space, then use a GPL'ed shim that simply passes standard-interface (e.g., IOCTL) messages between them. This is only necessary, by the way, if you need any kernel work at all...
To put us back on track, it really would be stupid for Tesla to build anything into kernel space given the kernel's capabilities today. The kernel simply facilitates the transfer of information across various buses (CAN, USB, etc.) and everything else can be handled in userspace or firmware, free of the GPL taint.
Bottom line, I still don't see what the cage-rattling is all about here. Does the OP think he's going to get any special trade secrets out of Tesla, or just trying to rattle some cages? Any smart company knows better than to embed its trade secrets into Linux at this point in time, so what good is forcing Tesla to put a copy of stock Linux kernel source up on a web site?�
Oct 29, 2012
rcc You're missing the point here. As I understand it, the Tesla software system is designed as multiple standalone processing systems and programs so that the main system driving the touchscreen can crash and the rest of the car will still work.
However, that main system is designed to interact with the rest of the car's systems in a much more integrated way than a typical car today. And as I understand it, that main system is software that runs on Linux.
Look at the driver profiles and integration with the side mirrors. Look at the way the system can dynamically adjust steering and suspension settings. At one point in the future, the driver profiles could set mirror preferences, climate control, seat heaters, steering and suspension settings, hill creep, regen, even acceleration profiles.
It's not just an infotainment system. It's also an integrated control and configuration system. It can and does tell the other systems in the car what they should do. Fortunately, it doesn't tell them how they should go about doing it. So if the primary system crashes, the rest of the systems keep working.
The true danger of messing with the primary system is that a mistake could cause the software to dictate the wrong settings to the other systems. Or keep changing them as you roll down the road. Or both. Will those system behave sanely if their settings are flipped hundreds of times a second? And some of those settings don't make sense? Don't know.
The nightmare danger is that somehow, someone manages to bypass the safeguards around shutting down or booting new engine management or battery pack management software. Both of which I suspect were written by Tesla and are designed to allow OTA updates. Hopefully someone very paranoid wrote the code in those systems so that even if the infotainment system tells it to shut down or reboot, it'll check to verify that the car is shut down before proceeding.
If I'm a Tesla software architect (which I'm not), I'm confident I can engineer a system that will not misbehave like this. But all bets are off if people can mess with my software or swap in a different kernel underneath my software.�
Oct 29, 2012
ggr I'm almost afraid to post this, but you definitely can hack safety critical systems from the infotainment equipment. Once on the CANBUS, security is near enough to non-existent. See, for example, http://www.autosec.org/pubs/cars-usenixsec2011.pdf�
Oct 29, 2012
Norbert We've already seen on the development/debug screens posted elsewhere here, that there is more access than is being used in the user-accessible "infotainment".�
Nov 14, 2012
neroden Actually, it's guaranteed that they did. Configuration options. Which is what I originally asked them about. The kernel has something like 10,000 configuration choices, and I want to know which ones they used, which I have a right to know.
Well, if nobody else wants it, I'll get the information when I get my car. Since I have a legal right to it.
- - - Updated - - -
Except for what configuration options they chose, which is *exactly what I want to know*.
- - - Updated - - -
Because so far they've refused. Duh. I have been emailing them back and forth for over a year.
"Other priorities" is really not a good excuse for paying no attention to either community norms or legal compliance.
- - - Updated - - -
Let me tell you what I actually expect to do with the information. I expect to see a problem with the car's behavior, perhaps vampire load or slow response time on a touchscreen, I expect to look through the configuration options and say "Hey! Why didn't you turn on RT_SLEEP?" (or whatever, fake example) and then I expect to email Tesla with my partially informed debugging work, to assist their debugging. Many eyes make bugs shallow, and all that.�
Nov 14, 2012
FlasherZ Except you'll only make problems worse, because you'll have near-zero context at all. You'll have a configuration file to a kernel. Armed with only "the car loses an average of 10 miles range per day" and the kernel configuration file, you'll only cause more problems than help with your well-reasoned "Hey!" message.
Having near-zero context is hardly what I call "informed debugging work" at all, much less "partially".
Have fun storming the castle!�
Nov 14, 2012
dsm363 What evidence do you have that any of the Tesla specific code for subsystems will but subject to the GPL?
- - - Updated - - -
Think they'll make it?
It'd take a miracle.�
Nov 14, 2012
dtich this is a hilarious thread.
why not let the people who fly rockets to the space station design and debug the brand spanking new EV you've paid them for, and you keep your eyes on the road and your hands on the wheel? lol.�
Nov 14, 2012
digitaltim +1 dtich
This is where I come for my daily dose of humor...
My advice is to ask for a refund and find an automotive manufacture that will give you source and buy that one.�
Feb 12, 2013
aaronw Has anyone requested a copy of the Linux that runs on the model S?
A fair amount of software that runs on the model S is GPLed such as the Linux kernel. As an owner of the model S, Tesla is obligated to make available the source code if asked either for free or for a reasonable fee. Of course this does not extend to all of the software. It would be interesting to see what GPLed and LGPLed software is being used on the model S. I am pretty sure that the GUI is written using Qt (probably non-LGPLed version).�
Feb 12, 2013
Jason S Prolly Qt on top of nVidia's base OS distro.�
Feb 12, 2013
strider There's a thread on this already:
Anyone want to get the source code for the Linux (etc.) in your car?�
Feb 12, 2013
aaronw That would make sense. I work on the bootloader and Linux distro that my employer makes for our multi-core MIPS processors. Getting a hold of the source to the bootloader (if it's U-Boot or another open source bootloader) can also reveal a lot.�
Jul 17, 2015
cryptyk Did anything ever come of this? With the upcoming defcon exploits, sending notices to people that "hack" the Ethernet port, and 3 years of ignoring copyright law, it seems like a relevant time for Tesla to release their gpl code...�
Jul 17, 2015
breser Nope and it's been discussed again more recently in this thread:
OSS and Tesla�
Jul 17, 2015
neroden Tesla's being threatened with suit for copyright violation by the copyright holders (not sure whether the suit has actually started yet). Tesla doesn't have a leg to stand on, but I was told Tesla had hired a law firm known specifically for delaying tactics. Rather than just doing what they should have done 3 years ago.
Well, yes, they certainly should. Tesla's willful misappropriation of the hard work of hundreds of programmers is not cool. These people rely on credit and reputation for future work, and Tesla's just ripping them off.�
Jul 17, 2015
dsm363 Why haven't you done anything about this? You've been going on about this for over 3 years at this point. Initially you said you couldn't do anything because you didn't have the car yet but now you do.�
Jul 18, 2015
breser He's not a copyright holder so he doesn't have the right to actually sue Tesla. According to him people who actually do have that right to pursue it are.�
Jul 18, 2015
dsm363 I see. Well if the copyright holders are not concerned then I find it hard to get worked up about this. Entirely possible the actual copyright holders have looked into this and saw there is nothing there to do anything about.�
Jul 18, 2015
breser I can assure you that at least some subset of copyright holders would be upset about Tesla violating this clause. It's come up numerous times in the past with other companies doing similar things to what Tesla is doing. So I really have no reason to doubt that some copyright holders are pursuing this.
Most of the time after a complaint has been made things get fixed quickly and it never gets to court. The cost and effort to comply is far less than the cost to litigate. Which is why this doesn't really make news except in the open source community.�
Jul 18, 2015
lagann The problem is a definitive lack of proof. Without having a dump of the firmware binary they have to go off other evidence such as statements from Musk, the browser reporting as Linux, and a picture of the screen showing a Linux boot screen. It could be that some copyright holders have no clue their software is being stolen. I assure you though a case is in the process.�
Jul 20, 2015
tom66 We know for sure it runs Linux, because someone managed to get Xorg/Firefox on there and reported the console as running Linux.�
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 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? There are many, many more questions that determine whether they are required to publish anything, or merely provide a pointer. You have spewed much conjecture but zero fact.
- - - Updated - - -
Accuracy is important... they connected to the Ethernet bus in the car and used tools to list the X display's characteristics, along with reporting the OpenSSH version string. Firefox was NOT installed on the car's touchscreen; rather, they ran it on a local PC and exported the application's display across the network.
These strings can be made to read anything you'd like them to read, so they're not a smoking gun. Perhaps probable cause to raise questions...�
Jul 20, 2015
lagann Elon's public statements that they are using Linux is really all the evidence you need to make these accusations.�
Jul 20, 2015
breser Let's just presume that Tesla is using the Linux kernel for the purposes of this post. I understand there is the question of proof there. But if you assume that Tesla is using the Linux kernel it is clear that they are violating the license.
Assembling their own components or using a distribution is irrelevant to the license clause. The important part is are they offering the source code to people they are distributing object code to. As an owner (and despite some effort looking for it) I have not found this offer. It is not in the car's manual. It is not on their website. It is not in the paper documentation that comes with the car.
Even if they are relying on a third party to provide the source code, they still have to provide that third parties source code offer. They don't.
Setting the bar of proof here (assuming you accept that Tesla is using the Linux kernel) as high as expecting Tesla to come out and admit they are violating the license is absurd. If Tesla is willfully refusing to comply with the license they aren't going to make such a comment. It's like saying that OJ can't have been guilty because he never sent a letter to the press admitting guilt. You're not going to find a smoking gun like this.
Now if you want to debate if Tesla is not using the Linux Kernel I'm all ears for that. But as far as I can tell there's been no evidence that they aren't and there's been plenty of public statements that suggest that they are.�
Jul 20, 2015
ItsNotAboutTheMoney Doesn't say that they're using a modified version of anything though. And note that modified means modified from a version with a copyright held by someone else. For all we know, someone at Tesla might have had patches sent upstream.�
Jul 20, 2015
JimmyAZ For someone that doesn't even have the car yet - and making some very aggressive claims for code, I wouldn't be surprised if you received your deposit back in the mail and a "Thank you, but no thank you." letter from Tesla. Careful about your pushy behavior. We've already seen it backfire once. I for one wouldn't be surprised in the slightest.�
Jul 20, 2015
breser Modification doesn't matter. Read my post here:
OSS and Tesla - Page 6�
Jul 20, 2015
MsElectric Okay so here's the source code you wanted:
https://github.com/torvalds/linux
Tesla probably built any of their proprietary software components as separate modules separate from the OS with just the interface hooks in the OS . They are under no obligation to release their proprietary code separate from the OS. I feel bad for you as you seem passionate about your mission but you may be on a fool's errand where at the end you may get them to release more or less what is the public codebase for the OS and nothing more.
Could you please now stop distracting Tesla from building cars? Don't you have a kernel to build or something?�
Jul 20, 2015
FlasherZ There are many cases in which Tesla would not be required, legally, to distribute a pointer to source code and/or the source code itself, and you've made my point for me. "No evidence they aren't using Linux and plenty of public statements that suggest they are" is insufficient legal basis to prove -- even with preponderance of the evidence standards -- that they are violating the GPL.
You are required to prove that they are "distributing" the code in the first place -- but if they are merely integrating a component from another vendor as-is, it may or may not be considered "distributing". If CDW sells you an HP server that has Linux installed, are they "distributing" Linux and are they therefore required to put the tarball up? The answer to that question is "no". There is an argument that it could be considered a derivative, but there is plenty of case law either way on that one. And that's just ONE case in which they wouldn't be required to do so. Your beef might be with their supplier.
Again, merely saying "no evidence they're not using Linux and plenty of statements that suggest that they are" is very flawed legal analysis.�
Jul 20, 2015
yobigd20 unless you have proof that they modified GPL code I don't see this going anywhere.�
Jul 20, 2015
breser Please read my post and the GPL again. If you distribute object code you are required to distribute an offer for the source code and/or the source code itself. The only way to avoid that requirement is to not distribute object code. It would be impractical for Tesla to be distributing only source code to the cars. For one thing for this to be the case you'd have to wait for the source to compile after delivery before the car would be drivable.
CDW is required to do so if they sell such a server. They end up doing so by passing through the offer provided by HP as allowed by this clause in the GPL.
Actually no. This would be a civil case. Preponderance of the evidence would be the legal standard.
- - - Updated - - -
Modification only means that you can't rely on a third party to distribute the source for you and have to do it yourself. If Tesla has not modified the code and they're getting it for kernel.org then a link there would be sufficient to comply with the license. But they are still obligated to distribute that link every single time they are distributing the resulting object code from the unmodified source.�
Jul 20, 2015
LetsGoFast Not really. It is at least possible that Tesla has not modified any GPL code. They could possibly have simply written things to run as application software without modification to the actual OS and code for those applications are not required to be disclosed. There are also all sorts of arcane rules when the software is released on ROMs as well as number of open legal questions that have yet to be litigated. It is quite likely that Tesla is required to disclose at least some code under the GPL, but just using a GPL OS is not enough to know that. It would be something that could quickly be determined using the rules of discovery should it come to litigation, however. I'm not excited to get into a protracted GPL debate unless I'm getting paid to participate, but it is a much more complicated and nuanced question than many here seem to think.
Even if they have extended the OS (which seems quite likely), those plug-ins are likely exempt from reporting if they aren't derivitive although the exact rules vary a bit between GPLv2 and GPLv3. (Lawrence Rosen on derivitive works)�
Jul 20, 2015
breser I think a lot of people get caught up in this whole modification and derivative work issue because it is the more difficult issue to consider. So a lot of people have heard about the issues with modifying GPL code and understand that such modifications require additional effort to comply with the license.
I would agree that there is considerable room for debate as to what constitutes a derivative work. But that's not even really an important issue in this situation. I'd presume that Tesla isn't stupid and that they did their own code in the user space where as I've mentioned above there is a clear statement saying that such a thing would not be considered a derivative work. If not then yes that could get more complicated.
However, they still aren't complying with the license even if you presume they made no modifications due to the requirements to provide the source code or an offer for the source code along with any object code.�
Jul 20, 2015
FlasherZ I read it. Your definition of "distribute" may not be the controlling legal definition. I know in the cases I've looked at, it's not as simple as you say it is.
I'm pretty sure you just indicted an entire industry, and I'm wondering why every single systems integrator and distributor hasn't been sued into oblivion already under your interpretation, given the number of copyright holders in Linux. The last I looked, most systems distributors and integrators rely upon the /LICENSE file, unmodified, and don't take any specific action to amplify, repeat, or display it when they have used it without modification. If there's specific case law that requires them to, perhaps you can share the citation.
Indeed, but that's not what I said - perhaps re-read my post? I said that EVEN under preponderance of the evidence standard, that failure to prove Tesla's "distribution" (e.g., you did not account for the many ways that their arrangement with suppliers and technology providers would save them from action) and instead relying upon "well, they said Linux, therefore... GUILTY!" is a poor legal analysis. Works great for one's own point of view, but doesn't stand up under external scrutiny.�
Jul 20, 2015
breser I didn't provide a definition of distribute. The important phrase is copy. The license says copy and distribute because they mean you made a copy and then gave it to someone else. The GPL says this because they don't need to worry about how many copies you make for yourself because they're not trying to limit this. So the term distribute in the GPL exists to reduce the production provided by copyright law, not expand it.
Let me be clear here. It really depends on what role you mean when you're referring to these other parties. The important bit is who's making the copy. If HP makes a copy and then CDW just ships that along then CDW isn't really responsible for complying with the license (yes I was less than clear about this earlier).
But I think this is a very poor example to compare to what Tesla is doing. I find it very hard to believe that Tesla is making no copies in the course of their business that end up in the hands of end users.
One point I'll make here is comparing a general purpose computer that includes documentation that is embedded and generally available to end users is far different than the case of Tesla. I'd consider Tesla's situation to be much closer to TiVo which has the following page:
TiVo | Legal Policies | Open Source
Which is linked to in their documentation and in their interface.
I don't believe the conditions that you're suggesting that would excuse Tesla of these license obligations are likely. Basically nVidia or some other vendor would be the one making copies for Tesla. Tesla would then be unable to provide updates to their existing user base, because I don't think you can make the argument that their update process is not making copies.�
Jul 20, 2015
bovine Even if third-party GPL code is used in a product and not modified, that vendor needs to be prepared to re-distribute the original source code for those components upon request. If they made any changes to those GPL components, then those changes should also be included.�
Jul 20, 2015
lagann These are all wrong, 100%. Stop distracting Tesla? Seriously? Quit commenting on stuff you know NOTHING about. Also, stating that we shouldn't hold Tesla responsible for stealing other peoples work so as to not distract them is asinine. There is no question they are in violation. If they haven't modified any of it, then they MUST state WHICH version of the kernel is included, among other things, with EACH firmware release. All it comes down to is people stating dumb things like there's no proof that would hold up in court. That would require a firmware dump, which Tesla is protecting very closely. It's shady and wrong. There's no question about it. Anything you all are arguing do not apply and are ignorant at best. The kernel is on the car; there is enough proof for us to accuse them publicly on that. And seriously, don't come in here with your ridiculous notions that they shouldn't be held accountable because you want them to make more cars. That's an insult to every developer who has ever released any open source code. You can have your own personal opinion on how you think Tesla should be able to take other peoples code without following the license they attached to it and do whatever they want with it, but it has no bearing on the fact they are doing it and violating the GPL. Including it from another vendor, such as NVIDIA, also does not matter. They are still distributing it themselves whenever they deliver the car.
Seriously, stop. You're just making yourselves look like asshats.�
Jul 20, 2015
JimmyAZ Aaaand with that response I'm seriously bored with this thread.�
Jul 20, 2015
DrumCoder Totally agree. The best thing to do when presented with perspectives that differ from ones own is to quote those perspectives (even if they include facts and evidence) and then laugh at them and call them names. That will get them to realize the error of their ways and why their points are totally invalid.
If Tesla is truly as guilty as you claim they are, why do you still own one of their products? If I felt as strongly as you did on this issue, you better believe I would have rectified my mistake and gotten the offending product out of my life. There are plenty of cars on the market who are not accused of stealing software, so why give your money to one of the few car manufacturers who allegedly does? It's obviously a deeply personal issue for you. I'm not saying don't fight, but even you have to realize it looks a little bit hypocritical. I understand perhaps being an investor (there are "Activist Investors" that invest in companies that do things they dislike in the hopes of stopping the company from doing those things, such as certain Microsoft investors who want them to drop all consumer-facing aspects of the company and go enterprise only) but being an active consumer of a company that, in your eyes, is unquestionably so in the wrong?
I don't care how cool the product is. If I believe the company made that product immorally, I would not use that product.�
Jul 20, 2015
breser Not sure why you're quoting my post given my position. I don't think it's necessary to call people names even if we disagree.
- - - Updated - - -
In my case. I don't have a black and white view of the world. Good people do bad things sometimes. Sometimes it's just a matter of not being aware that what they're doing is bad. I've bothered posting on this thread because I believe that Tesla is not complying with the license like they should. I also realize that there's not a lot of harm to myself in doing so. Given the GPLv2 and the limitation of only Tesla blessed software being able to be installed on the car (otherwise known as tivoication) I couldn't do much with the source even if they provided it. I'd like to think that maybe someone at Tesla is reading this and considering how to resolve the situation.�
Jul 20, 2015
FlasherZ Case citations, please. I've already stated several reasons why Tesla may not be subject to what you think they are subject. You say that it's 100% wrong but offer no proof to refute the points I made.
As to what I know about the topic, suffice it to say that I've spent more time than a man or woman should with legal departments discussing obligations under open source licenses.�
Jul 20, 2015
S'toon Linux is open source. Free for use and modification. It's been stated that Tesla uses a specific distro of Linux. That distro is used as a base for other distros freely, ie. Mint, Peppermint, elementary, Element OS.
Any claims suing for copyright infringement would be on shaky ground.
In production and development, open source as a development model promotes a universal access via a free license to a product's design or blueprint, and universal redistribution of that design or blueprint, including subsequent improvements to it by anyone.
The OS project is publicly committed to the principles of open-source software development; people are encouraged to use free software, study how it works, improve upon it, and distribute it.�
Jul 20, 2015
breser I'm glad you seem to have a fairly general understanding of Open Source software. However, just because something has an Open Source license doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. Though there are some licenses that go so far as to suggest that you can do whatever you want with the software, the GPLv2 license is not one of them.
Violating the license voids the permissions that the license grants. Thus triggering a copyright infringement claim.
�
Jul 20, 2015
lagann Sorry, I didn't mean to quote your post. Also, I'm not calling anyone names. All the arguments and citations I gave disproving what has been stated are in the other thread. It's reached the point where you can keep linking to everything, but people don't want it to be true, and basically refuse to read any of it. It's obvious that there is a lot of hostility towards GPL and open source by many people, as evidenced by the responses that have been posted in these threads.
- - - Updated - - -
The fact that I own a car actually pushes me to be more involved in this. I love my car, and what Tesla is trying to do, and I'm holding them to my high standards I have for them.�
Jul 20, 2015
breser Just to be clear. You're not going to find a lot of case law specifically on open source licenses.
The only US case I'm aware of is Jacobsen v. Katzer. Which was about the Artistic License (which happens to be a very poorly written license in comparison to the GPL). But ultimately held that the requirements of the license were conditions and not covenents and as such violating the requirements resulted in a copyright infringement claim.
Lawsuits against various companies for similar things to what we're talking about with Tesla have been filled over the years. But they almost always end up being settled and aren't challenged. I believe the furthest any of these cases have gotten was the Westinghouse Digital Electronics, LLC case where Westinghouse ended up going bankrupt during the case and stopped participating in the case and a default judgement was awarded against them (the other entities settled):
http://sfconservancy.org/docs/2010-07-27_dj-opinion.pdf
Granted this doesn't prove a whole lot it since it was a default judgement. I do think it shows that there is reasonable cause to believe that violating the GPLv2 (as the Busybox software involved in this case is also licensed under) is cause for a copyright infringement.
I'd caution the reliance on advice given by various legal departments with respect to copyright law. The law is very confusing. Many parts of it only apply to certain mediums. Many bits of it open to a great deal of interpretation. I've learned what I know by reading a lot of different opinions about the law from various copyright law experts (including Lawrence Rosen who someone in one of these threads linked to earlier).
But no I'm not a lawyer and I'm certainly open to being proven wrong. But it's my personal opinion that I find it highly unlikely that Tesla falls into some very narrow and very hypothetical cracks in the license with regard to the source availability on object code distribution clauses.�
Jul 20, 2015
S'toon OK, look at it this way.
I've known which distro Tesla is using for months. If I know, then they know. If they know, and they're not OK with it, then who are random people on a forum to go around threatening lawsuits on their behalf for copyright infringement? They'd have filed for a law suit already.�
Jul 20, 2015
FlasherZ How is that not calling names?
No, you haven't refuted the points in the other thread, in this thread, or anywhere. You make a blanket claim that anyone who doesn't agree with your position on the matter is openly hostile toward the GPL, and that can't be further from the truth with me. I'm not a member of Stallman's Communist Software Army, but I'm not the opposite of that, either.
As I said previously, for some time I was the author of a chunk of code in the Linux kernel (since retired), and some of my code in a few other side projects lives on today, happily subject to the GPL. I have first-hand, direct experience with the topic at hand, and point out that the black-and-white conclusion you and others are reaching isn't as black-and-white as it seems. Until a judgment establishes precedent as part of case law, the waters are still murky. And until then, neither you nor I can claim we're 100% right or the other is 100% wrong.�
Jul 20, 2015
breser We're not really talking about the distribution here, we're talking about just the kernel.
I don't believe anyone has threatened a lawsuit. I do believe that one individual has claimed that work towards that is in progress. But with respect to the Linux kernel really only kernel developers can make a copyright infringement claim.
There are a number of reasons why a copyright infringement suit hasn't been filed yet.
- A Kernel Developer who actually has their code in the binary that Tesla is using has to be the one bringing the action. There are a number of modules and not everything may be included in the binary. So being sure that your specific code is included in important. That almost certainly means extract the firmware and determining what code is there. Tesla hasn't made that particularly easy.
- Most people involved in the community don't really want to file law suits. They'd much rather see that companies comply voluntarily. So filing suits is left as a last resort. It usually takes a number of years of talking with a company before anyone gets this far. The Model S has only been out since late 2012. It's possible nobody has progressed this far.
- It costs money to file a suit and take it to court. Most of the appropriate people don't have the money to do this. So they depend on non-profits like the Software Freedom Law Center to bring these suits. These places have limited resources and tend to group up similar cases and take them to court together. Allowing them to better use their resources.
- In order to get the best results from a copyright infringement claim you need to register the copyright and do so within 3 months of the release of the software. They may be waiting for Tesla to use a version that has been registered with the copyright office for this purpose.
- They may be waiting for it to be clear that Tesla is not complying due to willful infringement. The longer they wait after notifying Tesla and the more opportunity they give Tesla to resolve the matter the more likely Tesla's non-compliance will be consider willful.
- Without a registered copyright and willful infringement the damages for infringement are very small. As a result you might not even recoup the cost of litigation.
The absence of a law suit in progress does not mean that what Tesla is doing is OK. It just means nobody has taken them to court yet.
- - - Updated - - -
In fairness you're also engaging in name calling. I'm not a member of the Free Software Foundation and personally tend to license all of my code under the Apache Software License. So I wouldn't consider myself a follower of Stallman. But I find the mention of Communism to be pejorative.�
Jul 20, 2015
FlasherZ ...and likewise, it also doesn't mean that what Tesla is doing is not OK - I've pointed out the cases where Tesla would not be responsible for delivering source code, real cases that occur in industry daily, that are being dismissed without consideration.
I didn't call you or anyone else a member of his army, either. Stallman has said on a number of occasions that he believes that all software should be owned by no one - i.e., communism. Nothing pejorative about it -- he has quite an extreme view, and "communist" is indeed the proper word to describe it; I merely said I wasn't on either extreme end of the spectrum.
- - - Updated - - -
(and for what it's worth, even Stallman violated the GPL himself between 2009 and 2011...)
Re: Compiled files without sources????
As I mentioned in the other thread, we seem to be circling. There is still no proof that Tesla is copying/distributing by the legal terms, only assumptions of such. I've posed plausible reasons why they may not be subject to it, while recognizing that, yes, Tesla could be violating the GPL. I tried to caution against jumping to conclusions based on assumptions, based on my experience working with legal counsel on open source responsibilities, but the assumptions continue on how Tesla handles code. My best to you all.�
Jul 20, 2015
breser And I never said the lack of a lawsuit was proof they were doing anything wrong. It'd be a pretty absurd suggestion and I find it annoying that you implied as much with this reply.
I'd love to see these dismissals on GPL copyright claims over the scenarios you've suggested. I'm not aware of a single GPL case ever actually being dismissed in the scenarios you've presented. I'm actually can only think of two that got before a judge, one outside the US and the one I already linked.
If you actually read that thread. Chong Yidong violated the GPL by committing the binaries. The Free Software Foundation (FSF) didn't in distributing the binaries because they own the copyright to GNU EMacs (FSF works on a copyright assignment so is the single holder of the copyright on their projects). Anyone that redistributed the binaries may or may not have violated the GPL. If they relied on the information they received as to the offer to distribute the source code (3c clause) then they probably aren't in violation since...
Emphasis again mine. As long as they simply passed along the info they received with the binaries as to where to find the source. They remained in compliance.
Anyone relying on 3a or 3b would be in violation since they wouldn't have the complete source code.
It's not clear that Stallman himself falls into one of those situations. But it's possible. I don't know to what degree he was distributing Emacs personally as opposed to just telling people where to find it on the FSF website. Then again Stallman as the President of the FSF could claim he was acting as an officer of the FSF and didn't ever violate the GPL.
Then again I don't think Stallman would go so far as to lawyer around the license like that and would just fix things by providing the source, which is exactly what happened as soon as the issue was discovered.
But hey, you found a thread that you can spin to suit your politics. Congratulations. You win again.�
Jul 21, 2015
lagann I apologize. This whole topic is frustrating and I spoke a bit too harshly. I didn't mean to hurt anyone's feelings or call them names.�
Jul 21, 2015
neroden
They're in the "talking" stage. Tesla is being deliberately obstructionist. Yes, it will apparently take years.
If people don't believe me, they can call the Software Freedom Conservancy.
When I bought my car, I assumed Tesla was going to comply -- because everything they'd said previously had implied that they would. I was startled to see that they had not complied, so I called them up and notified them about the problem, hoping for a quick resolution When I got no followup, I called them up again. Eventually, getting a bit annoyed, I called their legal department specifically and notified them. After a *year* had passed with no response, I contacted the representatives of the copyright holders, and provided sufficient evidence for them to start investigating. They then told me that these cases often take a really long time, and that Tesla had specifically hired a law firm which was known to specialize in delaying tactics (not that there's anything wrong with that as a law speciality).
- - - Updated - - -
Tesla is specifically required to provide configuration files. I specifically requested configuration files. There is a specific reason for that: I want to know how they're configuring the kernel in order to handle the low-power, sleep/wakeup issues. I suspect there may be some simple fixes they haven't thought of. I have a right to those configuration files according to the GPL license, and Tesla is specifically not providing them.
- - - Updated - - -
It's been proven sufficiently to allow for subpoenas and discovery. By screenshots posted by people who were watching during servicing visits, among other things.
- - - Updated - - -
There's enough proof for Tesla to lose on summary judgement. They're violating at least one (probably several) BSD-type / MIT-type licenses, too. Those have hardly any requirements *apart* from the requirement to credit the authors, which of course Tesla is not doing.
This matters. Getting credit is a valuable thing and the authors are being deprived of its benefits.
No, you haven't.
Which Tesla is violating. Other embedded device makers have been sued for exactly the same thing and have settled.
Really, I'd just like them to clean up their act. Seriously, how long does it take to publish their fscking configuration files for the Linux kernel? I gave them a year before I got fed up and contacted the representatives of the copyright holders. Partly because I figured the representatives of the copyright holders might be more stringent than I was, and I wanted to go easy on Tesla. Tesla has still published nothing, nothing, nothing, not even as a sign of good faith.
Linux copyright holders are very mellow people. A good-faith approximate attempt to comply is generally accepted.
And I'll say something else: if the company practices robust code design and maintenance practices, it's easy to comply. (For instance, IBM has systems which combine code under various open source licenses, proprietary licenses, and even *security clearance restrictions*, and handles them all correctly -- though that's an extreme example.) The only way it could be hard is if Tesla's got dangerously sloppy software development procedures, and if they do (which based on other evidence they might), this is a safety and reliability issue which should worry everyone and which Tesla should fix ASAP.�
Jul 23, 2015
aviators99 I imagine they need to do much more than publish configuration files. I'm guessing they made substantial material changes.
They really need to publish these changes. If they didn't plan to comply, why did they agree to the license in the first place? The "counterparty" performed. Tesla got a kernel without having to write one from scratch. Tesla needs to perform their end of the contract. There's really nothing to argue about.
- - - Updated - - -
By the way, I am pretty sure that if Tesla is found to have violated the GPL in court (which they would be), attorneys fees would be awarded under Copyright law (by rule).
- - - Updated - - -
My guess is that Tesla will switch to a different kernel that's under a different license. In the meantime (still my guess), since nobody is bothering them they are willfully violating the license. By the time someone gets around to it, they will settle by releasing their changes, which will be meaningless because they won't be using it anymore. Or if the new kernel isn't ready by then they will stall the case until it is.�
Jul 23, 2015
breser Litigation can drag on for years. Winning doesn't immediately grant you whatever you get awarded. You then have to deal with appeals and then if you win all that actually collect it. In the meantime attorneys need to pay their bills and feed their family.
You might say, but don't lawyers work on contingency. Yes they do, but in this case the damages may still be very small. That Westinghouse case ended up giving just $90,000 in damages and a few TVs. That sounds like a lot until you consider the number of TVs they probably made. What really happened was the court only considered all of the TVs as a single copyright infringement. So taking on a case like this is probably not very attractive to work on contingency. Especially since usually the clients are not out to try and get massive awards but just get compliance. So they won't push to try and turn it into some ridiculously large sum by calculating the highest possible number of incidents of infringement.
What's really going to happen here is that a non-profit will find the funds and pay the lawyers.�
Jul 25, 2015
neroden Well, I guess I was being kind to Tesla.�
Aug 8, 2015
drees Tesla is shipping so much GPLed software in the car, I find it highly unlikely that they will switch operating systems any time soon.
Look at how many systems are running Linux from the recent hacking findings:
Hacking a Tesla Model S: What we found and what we learned | Lookout Blog
Linux is running on 3 different sub-systems and just scanning the article is running at least these 3 GPL programs:
WebKit
OpenVPN
dnsmasq
mini_httpd is not GPL, but it's existence must be acknowledged in the product's documentation.�
Aug 8, 2015
Ingineer 3 subsystems? I'm aware of only 2; the IC and the MCU. The Gateway is OpenRTOS not Linux.�
Aug 8, 2015
drees The Parrot FC6050 module appears to be built on Linux, see link above.
OpenRTS is GPL licenced, too, unless they paid for a FreeRTS licence. Not certain of the details there.�
Aug 9, 2015
rlang59 Wouldn't the GPL compliance be Parrot Automotive's problem on that one?�
Aug 9, 2015
breser That depends on who is making the copy on the hardware that is being distributed (i.e. who is copying and distributing) and if that software is updated by the update mechanisms. If Parrot sells Tesla hardware preloaded with software and Tesla never makes another copy of that software (e.g. by updating it). Then yes that would be Parrot's problem. But as soon as Tesla makes another copy to distribute to owners, then they have taken on the compliance.�
Aug 9, 2015
rlang59 Lets assume since it is a module that is sold to OEMs (FC6000+ - Parrot Automotive) they are responsible, has anyone tried to get the Linux on there from them?
Users Manual for what it's worth:
PARROT Bluetooth Module FCC ID RKXFC6050W (Users Manual)
Also part of your statement doesn't make sense to me. Are you saying that if Tesla gets a binary from Parrot to update the card (no source just a binary) then Tesla is responsible for the GPL and not Parrot?�
Aug 9, 2015
drees Parrot is responsible for giving Tesla GPL source and Tesla is responsible for passing it along with any changes they may have made. If they did not make any changes, they still have to tell the owner where to get the GPL source.�
Aug 9, 2015
rlang59 Ok but has anyone attempted to get the GPL source from Parrot? I'm honestly wondering since unless I missed it they don't seem to comply either.�
Aug 9, 2015
drees I didn't look too hard for the code specific to the 6050, but a quick Google search reveals that Parrot is well aware of the GPL and regularly posts modified source code for the GPL binaries they distribute.
Tesla still needs to point to the appropriate Parrot sources for the binaries they are distributing.�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét