4 ms·

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://ww

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]
  - 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.
- qznc 11y ago
  Does the intention behind some GPL clause matter or how some court would interpret the text?
  - kuschku 11y ago
    For a court the intention very much matters – in case of doubt, the court will always resort to interpreting the intention. At least in Germany – and BMW is German.