4 ms·

The primary code needs to be published, and the publication kept current (versioning). I don't know what kind of open source license is well suited to this that

by cmurf 11y ago

The primary code needs to be published, and the publication kept current (versioning). I don't know what kind of open source license is well suited to this that also limited reuse and use modification since those things can open a liability can of worms potentially. But the idea that code applying to the primary control functions of an automobile cannot be known (is not published and cannot legally be reverse engineered) is just a bad idea. Consumers are injured, the environment is damaged, and arguably even a bunch of shareholders and national pride are damaged because none of the participants had a say in VW's decision. Well, they get a say if the code is published. User apps and UI/UX code I'd say can probably be proprietary, closed, and not published.

uxp 11y ago
So you're basically arguing for an Android-esque project for cars, where Samsung or Ford basically fills the device with crapware and bloat over a simple base system? I'd be fine with that, as long as there were firmware signing mechanisms in place to prevent every 16 year old with a USB cable and a penchant for speed from modding the family car. Early Android ROMs were a lesson in how not to modify things; luckily there wasn't a lot of widespread damage done with the quantity of compiled binaries of unknown origin being distributed over typical filesharing sites like Mediafire.
dsuth 11y ago
> But the idea that code applying to the primary control functions of an automobile cannot be known (is not published and cannot legally be reverse engineered) is just a bad idea. Why is it a bad idea? Do we know the code base of airplanes? Critical infrastructure, like power and water plants? How about military software that controls missile guidance? The answer isn't to open source everything and let programmers sort it out. We have regulatory and safety boards specifically to counter the issues around public safety that software in critical applications causes. A huge amount of time and money is spent developing standards, and verifying and monitoring compliance with them. Obviously these processes are not always perfect. In this case, it will be interesting to see how far the corruption necessary to include a pollution-defeat spreads. But throwing out the whole process and just publishing code in its place is not a reasonable solution. More stringent black box testing by experts could have caught this issue far sooner.
- cmurf 11y ago
  It's a bad idea because it's a departure from our historic common sense, as well as patents and copyrights. It's commonly accepted that when you buy a car you can learn how it works by poking it with a stick, and make modifications, and everyone expects that the things they modify they assume liability for and a warranty exemption. Code? Nope. You do not own that part of the car. You don't have the right to figure out how it work, or modify it, or even replace it. There's residual ownership in the form of IP, in perpetuity. One of the major purposes of patent law was to make the entire details of an invention public so that it was possible to know exactly what monopoly was being granted, and also permit people to learn and invent something better. That doesn't happen when things are obscured like this. And just because airplane code isn't published doesn't mean it's a good idea.
- venomsnake 11y ago
  >Why is it a bad idea? Do we know the code base of airplanes? Critical infrastructure, like power and water plants? How about military software that controls missile guidance? I OWN my car. I do not own nukes and powerplants yet. My evil genius lair is still under construction. Ownership should come with reversal rights, rooting, reflashing, modifying etc for this one unit I bought.
  - dsuth 11y ago
    By purchasing a car, you purchase an end product, which is designed to be suitable for your purposes. You don't purchase rights to a million manhours of software, free to do what you will with. If companies had to amortise the cost of code development over the cars they sold, you would end up paying a lot more for 'your' car.
    - venomsnake 11y ago
      Actually I do purchase it. I don't purchase the right to redistribute it. But I totally own the right to modify my car however I see fit as long as it is road legal. Part of it being mine.

by cmurf 11y ago

uxp 11y ago

So you're basically arguing for an Android-esque project for cars, where Samsung or Ford basically fills the device with crapware and bloat over a simple base system? I'd be fine with that, as long as there were firmware signing mechanisms in place to prevent every 16 year old with a USB cable and a penchant for speed from modding the family car. Early Android ROMs were a lesson in how not to modify things; luckily there wasn't a lot of widespread damage done with the quantity of compiled binaries of unknown origin being distributed over typical filesharing sites like Mediafire.

dsuth 11y ago

> But the idea that code applying to the primary control functions of an automobile cannot be known (is not published and cannot legally be reverse engineered) is just a bad idea. Why is it a bad idea? Do we know the code base of airplanes? Critical infrastructure, like power and water plants? How about military software that controls missile guidance? The answer isn't to open source everything and let programmers sort it out. We have regulatory and safety boards specifically to counter the issues around public safety that software in critical applications causes. A huge amount of time and money is spent developing standards, and verifying and monitoring compliance with them. Obviously these processes are not always perfect. In this case, it will be interesting to see how far the corruption necessary to include a pollution-defeat spreads. But throwing out the whole process and just publishing code in its place is not a reasonable solution. More stringent black box testing by experts could have caught this issue far sooner.

cmurf 11y ago
It's a bad idea because it's a departure from our historic common sense, as well as patents and copyrights. It's commonly accepted that when you buy a car you can learn how it works by poking it with a stick, and make modifications, and everyone expects that the things they modify they assume liability for and a warranty exemption. Code? Nope. You do not own that part of the car. You don't have the right to figure out how it work, or modify it, or even replace it. There's residual ownership in the form of IP, in perpetuity. One of the major purposes of patent law was to make the entire details of an invention public so that it was possible to know exactly what monopoly was being granted, and also permit people to learn and invent something better. That doesn't happen when things are obscured like this. And just because airplane code isn't published doesn't mean it's a good idea.
venomsnake 11y ago
>Why is it a bad idea? Do we know the code base of airplanes? Critical infrastructure, like power and water plants? How about military software that controls missile guidance? I OWN my car. I do not own nukes and powerplants yet. My evil genius lair is still under construction. Ownership should come with reversal rights, rooting, reflashing, modifying etc for this one unit I bought.
- dsuth 11y ago
  By purchasing a car, you purchase an end product, which is designed to be suitable for your purposes. You don't purchase rights to a million manhours of software, free to do what you will with. If companies had to amortise the cost of code development over the cars they sold, you would end up paying a lot more for 'your' car.
  - venomsnake 11y ago
    Actually I do purchase it. I don't purchase the right to redistribute it. But I totally own the right to modify my car however I see fit as long as it is road legal. Part of it being mine.