9 ms·

The linked site may be useful, but where on that site did you find a download link for the specific software version (including modifications) used? All I see i

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

knd775 11y ago
This was linked from the project website http://git.kernel.org/cgit/network/connman/connman.git/ http://git.kernel.org/cgit/network/connman/connman.git/ edit Never mind, I misunderstood your comment
- jmiserez 11y ago
  Yes, but that is just the ConnMan development repository. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think BMW would need to redistribute the exact version of ConnMan that they used, including any modifications made. At least a deep link to a branch or tag would be nice.
  - the_mitsuhiko 11y ago
    But only on request.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
SyneRyder 11y ago
I think BMW would argue that contributing their modifications directly to the ConnMan Git repository for others to use would suffice. You can find a list of BMW's commits to the ConnMan project here (Daniel Wagner seems to be the main developer from BMW Car IT working on it): http://git.kernel.org/cgit/network/connman/connman.git/log/?qt=author&q=bmw http://git.kernel.org/cgit/network/connman/connman.git/log/?...
- rbanffy 11y ago
  I have a feeling they would still have to be able to provide their clients with the exact version their cars are running.
- DannyBee 11y ago
  BMW would be wrong to argue that. They are required to provide corresponding source code, which means the exact version they put in the cars, with any patch files and build scripts needed to build it. They can't just link to the general project site
  - gknoy 11y ago
    In the era of distributed source control, it seems reasonable to me if "provide" meant, "link to a repo with our changes". I can see why that's not in the letter of the GPL (e.g., what if github ceases to exist ten years from now, and you want to tinker on your car), but for now it seems reasonable.
    - jordigh 11y ago
      It is in fact in the letter of the GPL: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#SourceInCVS https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#SourceInCVS The actual relevant text of GPLv3 is in section 6d: d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements. In GPLv2, this reads a bit differently: If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code. GPLv3 here seems a bit clearer to me. This in fact is one of the better reasons for GPLv3. It gives more modern options for distributing source code, since internet distribution became a lot more popular by the time GPLv3 was written.

knd775 11y ago

This was linked from the project website http://git.kernel.org/cgit/network/connman/connman.git/ http://git.kernel.org/cgit/network/connman/connman.git/ edit Never mind, I misunderstood your comment

jmiserez 11y ago
Yes, but that is just the ConnMan development repository. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think BMW would need to redistribute the exact version of ConnMan that they used, including any modifications made. At least a deep link to a branch or tag would be nice.
- the_mitsuhiko 11y ago
  But only on request.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

SyneRyder 11y ago

I think BMW would argue that contributing their modifications directly to the ConnMan Git repository for others to use would suffice. You can find a list of BMW's commits to the ConnMan project here (Daniel Wagner seems to be the main developer from BMW Car IT working on it): http://git.kernel.org/cgit/network/connman/connman.git/log/?qt=author&q=bmw http://git.kernel.org/cgit/network/connman/connman.git/log/?...

rbanffy 11y ago
I have a feeling they would still have to be able to provide their clients with the exact version their cars are running.
DannyBee 11y ago
BMW would be wrong to argue that. They are required to provide corresponding source code, which means the exact version they put in the cars, with any patch files and build scripts needed to build it. They can't just link to the general project site
- gknoy 11y ago
  In the era of distributed source control, it seems reasonable to me if "provide" meant, "link to a repo with our changes". I can see why that's not in the letter of the GPL (e.g., what if github ceases to exist ten years from now, and you want to tinker on your car), but for now it seems reasonable.
  - jordigh 11y ago
    It is in fact in the letter of the GPL: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#SourceInCVS https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#SourceInCVS The actual relevant text of GPLv3 is in section 6d: d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements. In GPLv2, this reads a bit differently: If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code. GPLv3 here seems a bit clearer to me. This in fact is one of the better reasons for GPLv3. It gives more modern options for distributing source code, since internet distribution became a lot more popular by the time GPLv3 was written.