3 ms·

It seems to me that they're not distributing any software (i.e., the product is a car, not software), which means licensing doesn't come into play. It would be

by goerz 11y ago

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

ceejayoz 11y ago
If that were the case, you could get around the GPL by claiming to sell CDs, thumbdrives, or zip files. Including software in your hardware product is undeniably distributing that software, IMO.
- goerz 11y ago
  I disagree. If you sell me a CD with software on it, I have the software. If you sell me a car that runs a software internally, I have a car, but not the software. The car, unlike the CD, is not a container for the software. In fact, there is no trivial or intended way to get the software out of the car. As I said, GPLv3 addresses this explicitly, but with GPLv2 the license just doesn't apply. Then again, lots of people strongly dislike GPLv3, possibly exactly for this reason.
  - goerz 11y ago
    Incidentally, if you send me a USB stick with some GPL software on it, I can demand that you give me the source code of that software. However, I can not demand that you also give me the source code for the firmware of the USB stick, even if the source code for that firmware is under GPL (v2)
    - cyphar 11y ago
      I would definitely demand the firmware if it is GPL. Just because it is "firmware" doesn't suddenly not make it software that you've given me.
      - goerz 11y ago
        I can't fathom a reading of the GPLv2 that would support your position. It's just not in there (it is, in GPLv3).
hhjkjhkjhhlkj 11y ago
If the car has the software then they are distributing the software
st3v3r 11y ago
"It seems to me that they're not distributing any software (i.e., the product is a car, not software)" The car is running software. They're distributing the car, therefore they're distributing software.

by goerz 11y ago

ceejayoz 11y ago

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

goerz 11y ago
I disagree. If you sell me a CD with software on it, I have the software. If you sell me a car that runs a software internally, I have a car, but not the software. The car, unlike the CD, is not a container for the software. In fact, there is no trivial or intended way to get the software out of the car. As I said, GPLv3 addresses this explicitly, but with GPLv2 the license just doesn't apply. Then again, lots of people strongly dislike GPLv3, possibly exactly for this reason.
- goerz 11y ago
  Incidentally, if you send me a USB stick with some GPL software on it, I can demand that you give me the source code of that software. However, I can not demand that you also give me the source code for the firmware of the USB stick, even if the source code for that firmware is under GPL (v2)
  - cyphar 11y ago
    I would definitely demand the firmware if it is GPL. Just because it is "firmware" doesn't suddenly not make it software that you've given me.
    - goerz 11y ago
      I can't fathom a reading of the GPLv2 that would support your position. It's just not in there (it is, in GPLv3).

hhjkjhkjhhlkj 11y ago

If the car has the software then they are distributing the software

st3v3r 11y ago

"It seems to me that they're not distributing any software (i.e., the product is a car, not software)" The car is running software. They're distributing the car, therefore they're distributing software.