6 ms·

To me this doesn't really look like a clear cut case. Does he own one of these cars? If not, then I think it is very dubious whether he has any standing to requ

by zmmmmm 11y ago

To me this doesn't really look like a clear cut case. Does he own one of these cars? If not, then I think it is very dubious whether he has any standing to request the source code. If he does then included with the car should be an offer for how to access the GPL source code. He should have followed that (or clearly stated that he could not locate it in his email). The requirement for him to enter the VIN to access the source code does not seem unreasonable since they are only required to distribute source code to customers, and he has simply emailed them out of the blue asking them to give him the source without any proof that he's a customer. The statement about BMW being the "sole owner" is probably concerning proprietary parts of the software that may not be subject to GPL at all. It is probably way beyond the skills of some random customer service rep to distinguish the subtleties of those kind of things. This kind of interaction actually looks to me to be counter to the spirit under which the Free Software Foundation tries to administer the GPL - which is that they work cooperatively to help companies comply rather than try to trick them into legal hot water. I agree with the FSF approach and I don't think this sort of PR ambush type tactic is helpful in promoting the use of free software.

ratboy666 11y ago
No, the offer for source must be to anyone -- the supply of a binary may be limited. BMW cannot be the "sole owner" of the copyright -- even if they own the part they wrote, they must still supply source for the GPL parts.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- qznc 11y ago
  "the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users" Source: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLRequireSourc... BMW does not have to provide the sources to everybody. Only to its users. edit: tzs also has a point. Hm?
  - Deregibus 11y ago
    I was also under that impression as well, but from that same page you posted: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#WhatDoesWritten... Which sounds like if you didn't provide the source with the program up front then you're required to give it to anyone that asks since they may have received the program indirectly.
    - kuschku 11y ago
      > since they may have received the program indirectly. Which is rarely possible for a car OS, honestly.
      - st3v3r 11y ago
        Really? I would consider it to be quite common, given the prevalence of used cars.
        FireBeyond 11y ago
        Which would be direct, not indirect. You are in possession of the vehicle, with the legal standing of an owner.
        kuschku 11y ago
        In that case you have the car, and the VIN – and received the software directly. Please specify a use case where you received the software without the VIN, thanks.
      - bobbles 11y ago
        People buying used cars is pretty common...
        FireBeyond 11y ago
        And also direct.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
tzs 11y ago
> To me this doesn't really look like a clear cut case. Does he own one of these cars? If not, then I think it is very dubious whether he has any standing to request the source code. (All section references below are to GPLv2, since that is what the Linux kernel uses) Section 3 governs distribution of object or executable code. Section 3 gives these requirements: a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) BMW is distributing commercially and they did not receive the program in object or executable form, so option "c" is out. They are not distributing the source code with their cars, so option "a" is out. That leaves option "b", which requires them to give the code to any third party that requests it, at no more than their cost of performing a source distribution.
- zmmmmm 11y ago
  > That leaves option "b", which requires them to give the code to any third party that requests it, That's very interesting wording that I wasn't aware of. It still seems to me like it is a reasonable interpretation that only the customer could request it (the "offer" is to the customer, the distribution is to the third party). So, having bought the car, I could say "Please send the source code to my friend Fred". However my understanding is that the long held general interpretation of the GPL has always been that you only get standing to request the source code if you actually received the GPL code yourself.
- mrb 11y ago
  "They are not distributing the source code with their cars, so option "a" is out" I disagree. BMW currently offers the source code as a download on their website if a customer provides his 7-digit VIN, so this is them fulfilling the requirement that they must "accompany [the car] with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code". It is all in the meaning of "accompany it": giving the source code physically along with the keys when you purchase the car, or offering a source code download link. I would argue that either option is compliant with the GPL, so to me it seems BMW is in the right. Edit: s/IBM/BMW/
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
dTal 11y ago
I agree the VIN thing is a red herring. Seems to me the bigger problem is this (emphasis mine): "I have confirmed with our technical department who advised that to access the software download site the BMW Customer must provide the 7 digit VIN and accept the usage rights agreement. Part of the usage rights agreement states that the software is protected by copyright and BMW is the sole owner. So in this case it is not subject to the requirements of a "Public" licence." They're denying that their software is even GPL and imposing extra restrictions on use. That's a problem, if it does indeed include GPL code.
tremon 11y ago
it is very dubious whether he has any standing to request the source code That may be, but this tidbit is somewhat alarming to me: [the user must] accept the usage rights agreement. Part of the usage rights agreement states that the software is protected by copyright and BMW is the sole owner There's two red flags here for me: - asserting copyright through an EULA - additional "licensing" requirements for obtaining the source code
duncan_bayne 11y ago
I only tweeted the refusal after several verbal attempts to speak to someone in legal. My preferred approach - as it was when I dealt with Telstra over a similar issues - is to find the right person and sort things out with them. BMW Australia, however, were quite hostile, refused to let me speak to anyone in legal, and told me verbally that I'd have to sue them in order for them to release the code to their customers. I'm much less inclined to spend time resolving things smoothly and quietly at that point.

by zmmmmm 11y ago

ratboy666 11y ago

No, the offer for source must be to anyone -- the supply of a binary may be limited. BMW cannot be the "sole owner" of the copyright -- even if they own the part they wrote, they must still supply source for the GPL parts.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
qznc 11y ago
"the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users" Source: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLRequireSourc... BMW does not have to provide the sources to everybody. Only to its users. edit: tzs also has a point. Hm?
- Deregibus 11y ago
  I was also under that impression as well, but from that same page you posted: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#WhatDoesWritten... Which sounds like if you didn't provide the source with the program up front then you're required to give it to anyone that asks since they may have received the program indirectly.
  - kuschku 11y ago
    > since they may have received the program indirectly. Which is rarely possible for a car OS, honestly.
    - st3v3r 11y ago
      Really? I would consider it to be quite common, given the prevalence of used cars.
      - FireBeyond 11y ago
        Which would be direct, not indirect. You are in possession of the vehicle, with the legal standing of an owner.
      - kuschku 11y ago
        In that case you have the car, and the VIN – and received the software directly. Please specify a use case where you received the software without the VIN, thanks.
    - bobbles 11y ago
      People buying used cars is pretty common...
      - FireBeyond 11y ago
        And also direct.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

tzs 11y ago

> To me this doesn't really look like a clear cut case. Does he own one of these cars? If not, then I think it is very dubious whether he has any standing to request the source code. (All section references below are to GPLv2, since that is what the Linux kernel uses) Section 3 governs distribution of object or executable code. Section 3 gives these requirements: a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) BMW is distributing commercially and they did not receive the program in object or executable form, so option "c" is out. They are not distributing the source code with their cars, so option "a" is out. That leaves option "b", which requires them to give the code to any third party that requests it, at no more than their cost of performing a source distribution.

zmmmmm 11y ago
> That leaves option "b", which requires them to give the code to any third party that requests it, That's very interesting wording that I wasn't aware of. It still seems to me like it is a reasonable interpretation that only the customer could request it (the "offer" is to the customer, the distribution is to the third party). So, having bought the car, I could say "Please send the source code to my friend Fred". However my understanding is that the long held general interpretation of the GPL has always been that you only get standing to request the source code if you actually received the GPL code yourself.
mrb 11y ago
"They are not distributing the source code with their cars, so option "a" is out" I disagree. BMW currently offers the source code as a download on their website if a customer provides his 7-digit VIN, so this is them fulfilling the requirement that they must "accompany [the car] with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code". It is all in the meaning of "accompany it": giving the source code physically along with the keys when you purchase the car, or offering a source code download link. I would argue that either option is compliant with the GPL, so to me it seems BMW is in the right. Edit: s/IBM/BMW/

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

dTal 11y ago

I agree the VIN thing is a red herring. Seems to me the bigger problem is this (emphasis mine): "I have confirmed with our technical department who advised that to access the software download site the BMW Customer must provide the 7 digit VIN and accept the usage rights agreement. Part of the usage rights agreement states that the software is protected by copyright and BMW is the sole owner. So in this case it is not subject to the requirements of a "Public" licence." They're denying that their software is even GPL and imposing extra restrictions on use. That's a problem, if it does indeed include GPL code.

tremon 11y ago

it is very dubious whether he has any standing to request the source code That may be, but this tidbit is somewhat alarming to me: [the user must] accept the usage rights agreement. Part of the usage rights agreement states that the software is protected by copyright and BMW is the sole owner There's two red flags here for me: - asserting copyright through an EULA - additional "licensing" requirements for obtaining the source code

duncan_bayne 11y ago

I only tweeted the refusal after several verbal attempts to speak to someone in legal. My preferred approach - as it was when I dealt with Telstra over a similar issues - is to find the right person and sort things out with them. BMW Australia, however, were quite hostile, refused to let me speak to anyone in legal, and told me verbally that I'd have to sue them in order for them to release the code to their customers. I'm much less inclined to spend time resolving things smoothly and quietly at that point.