4 ms·

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 lett

by 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.
- SyneRyder 11y ago
  The code is licensed under GPL 2, but I agree the GPL 3 is actually much clearer & seems to suggest they're in compliance. (At least in respect to ConnMan.) Either way, if people are genuinely concerned and want a specific version of the source code for their car, it seems Daniel Wagner is a contact at BMW to ask. There's an email address in the git repository commits.

by gknoy 11y ago

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.

SyneRyder 11y ago
The code is licensed under GPL 2, but I agree the GPL 3 is actually much clearer & seems to suggest they're in compliance. (At least in respect to ConnMan.) Either way, if people are genuinely concerned and want a specific version of the source code for their car, it seems Daniel Wagner is a contact at BMW to ask. There's an email address in the git repository commits.