14 ms·
BMW are complying with the GPL
- merb 11y agoMost of these packages aren't modified at all? Wouldn't it be just enough to provide the Links?
- cyphar 11y agoI think GPLv3 lets you just provide links to upstream mirrors if it's unmodified, but GPLv2 doesn't have such a provision.
- unethical_ban 11y agoOff-topic: The title and several post refer to BMW as a plural: "BMW are complying" and "Do BMW have any obligation...?" I know BMW stands for Bavarian Motorworks, a plural, but so does the US, and it is a singular entity today. Are the people using BMW plural non-American? I've never heard that here in Texas.
- niccaluim 11y agoIt's British English. I see this usage all the time on BBC News. Drives me batty.
- fucking_tragedy 11y agoThey (BMW) are a group of people. They (BMW) are complying. That's the way I've had it explained to me.
- sk5t 11y agoHow is that an appropriate explanation, when you--presumably--wouldn't say "The group are complying"?
- sjwright 11y agoYou're overthinking it. If a group of people are complying, you say "they are complying". Your example is not a valid parallel.
- fucking_tragedy 11y agoCorporations are viewed as collective nouns to be used with plural verbs, where as "group" is a collective noun that is treated as singular. I can't think of a context in which I'd use a plural verb with it, but I can think of dozens of such nouns that I would. You can say "The group is complying. They have an obligation." without it sounding awkward, however. Something about formal, notional and situational agreement[0]. The "they" explanation just helped bridge the gap in my mind. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_American_and_British_English#Formal_and_notional_agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_American_and_Bri...
- pbhjpbhj 11y agoI think you would say "the group are complying" when you want to specify that the group as individuals are complying (or when, like me, you don't grammar too well).
- stordoff 11y agoBoth are used in British English for companies, though the plural form is more common. It (to some extent) depends on which aspect of the company you are emphasising (though usage is not always consistent in that regard). Consider "TeamA is a football club" and "TeamA are beating TeamB". In the first example, TeamA is considered a singular entity, and you aren't really concerned with its makeup (though "TeamA are a football club" would also be correct). In the second, TeamA is a group descriptor as it is a group of players that are winning the match, not the single legal/business entity. AFAIK, the plural usage for business names is the most common usage in British English, though it also varies between British dialects (it always surprises me how much dialects vary in English - some areas of England still use an informal form of "you" occasionally, for example)
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- robmcm 11y agoSingular is typically used when talking about an entity or brand, where as a plural form is taken when talking about the company as a group of people, or when anthropomorphized. "BMW is a fantastic brand" "BMW are facing tough financial pressure"
- ashitlerferad 11y agoInteresting that they use SuperH CPUs. There is an in-progress Debian SH4 port. Debian on your car! https://wiki.debian.org/SH4 https://wiki.debian.org/SH4
- wrigby 11y agoThe Linux on Dreamcast effort made a ton of progress running on SH4. I haven't touched it in years, but I remember it being pretty mature, and that was quite a few years ago. I guess this means that BMWs are basically just a Dreamcast with wheels?
- SyneRyder 11y agoGood to see the follow up on this. And for what it's worth, I think Terence has handled this well and is being overly harsh on himself. The original comment was just a throwaway aside and not even an accusation. I don't think he should hold himself responsible for how others took the comment & inflated it. As the owner of a BMW, he's entitled to ask BMW for a copy of the LGPL source used. Job well done.
- voltagex_ 11y agoDo BMW have any obligation to provide it in any kind of buildable state? This looks like half a buildroot tree, but the build scripts are missing.
- rlpb 11y ago"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." For example, perhaps they have no build scripts, and do it by hand every time. If BMW developers do it this way, then that's fine by the wording of the GPL. It wouldn't be reasonable to require them to provide anything further than what they already do.
- bkuhn 11y agoScripts doesn't necessarily mean software scripts; it could be a script as in a script for a play. If the BMW engineers memorized their lines and know how to do them, they have to write out those lines as a requirement of the GPL. The GPL requires "oral tradition" build scripts to be passed along as well.
- jordigh 11y agoDo BMW have any obligation to provide it in any kind of buildable state? Yes. GPLv2, section 3: For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.
- 11y ago
- garethadams 11y agoOne of these things is not like the other… https://github.com/edent/BMW-OpenSource/blob/master/FOSS_S1/desktop.ini https://github.com/edent/BMW-OpenSource/blob/master/FOSS_S1/...
- zitterbewegung 11y agoProbably a file automatically generated when it was transferred to a Windows computer .
- GauntletWizard 11y agoOr when somebody used a windows computer to burn the DVD.
- nfrmatk 11y agoWhy do they have cups? Is there a 'print from car' button? https://github.com/edent/BMW-OpenSource/tree/master/FOSS_S1/cups https://github.com/edent/BMW-OpenSource/tree/master/FOSS_S1/...
- afarrell 11y agoYou can use LPR to spool audio files to a "printer" that queues those files to be played over speakers. There was a project called gutenbach to do this with CUPS, but last I heard the maintainer went off to grad school. Maybe they are doing something similar?
- Sanddancer 11y agoFrom what I can see and guess, they seem to be using one of Freescale's reference implementations...probably for the i.mx6, but don't hold me to it. It's got a lot of packages in there that aren't relevant. It's also interesting that they've also included all the source for an sh4-based microcontroller that's somewhere in the chain. Car systems are complicated these days.
- joosters 11y agoThey could be providing lots of extra unrelated source code packages to the guy, perhaps just to be thorough and to avoid missing anything, perhaps to just fill the DVD (don't let those ones and zeroes go to waste!), or perhaps to mess with people :) (e.g. throw in a SNES emulator source code to make hackers spend days searching fruitlessly trying to figure out how to make the BMW interface start playing Mario)
- suzeanne 11y agoInteresting: BMW did share the OSS they used, and in the process they also revealed lots of outdated packages in use. This of course leads me to wonder: Vulnerabilities? It is after all an Internet-connected vehicle. Despite the article author's recognition given for BMW's OSS compliance, I am dismayed to see yet another example of likely inconsideration given toward implementation of security in the engineering of an Internet-connected vehicle. This sort of negligence is eventually going to result in some rather ugly outcome.
- Sanddancer 11y agoFrom the looks of it, they used the OSes the chipmakers provide in their reference packages. The stlinux stuff seems ripped pretty much verbatim from stlinux 2.4 [0] and the rest seems to be from Freescale/NXP's reference linux for their i.MX series [1]. Automakers, like a lot of other entities, rarely make their own distros themselves, but rather tend to use the reference OS provided by the chipmakers. [0] ftp://ftp.stlinux.com/pub/stlinux/2.4/ [1] http://www.nxp.com/products/microcontrollers-and-processors/arm-processors/i.mx-applications-processors/i.mx53-processors/embedded-linux-for-i.mx-applications-processors:IMXLINUX?code=IMXLINUX&nodeId=0150522FC8ZrDR988D&fpsp=1&tab=Design_Tools_Tab http://www.nxp.com/products/microcontrollers-and-processors/...
- suzeanne 11y agoExcellent reply. Indeed, quite true. Though none of this excuses any negligence, no matter if it is the vendor of the manufacturer.
- cmurf 11y agoWith software this old, there certainly are vulnerabilities, probably full on exploits available, that have also long since been patched. The attack surface of new products using old software is much higher than it ought to be. And consider not is it in need of updating before it's being driven off the lot, it's likely to have service updates for a time frame shorter than its useful service life. We're doing this wrong.
- 11y ago
- viraptor 11y agoThere are some interesting things in there. tcpdump? Locally patched one at that? I wonder how is it used... maybe it's just used for debugging, but given that it's part of the deployed packages it's still interesting. edit: it looks like it was added specifically for IEEE 802.15.4 debugging
- SXX 11y agoJust wonder is anyone tried to get (L)GPL sources from Tesla?
- greglindahl 11y agoYes. I asked 2.5 years ago, no reply.
- voltagex_ 11y agoIt's worth trying again.
- ashitlerferad 11y agoProbably time to get Software Freedom Conservancy involved: https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/ https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/
- pksadiq 11y agoSome thoughts: Most of the companies ship older pieces of software for one important reason: They need to avoid GPL/LGPL/AGPL version 3. Version 3 of GNU GPL gives users more freedom which companies hate. For GPLv2 the companies had to just give away the source code. But they need not give away a way to change the software in the hardware. Which was then popularized as Tivoization. Version 3 of GNU GPL family of licenses fixed that. But companies didn't. So you can see a pattern in any hardware (routers, Cars, etc.) and even in OS like Mac, *BSD etc. And the pattern is they always avoid GPL v3. So they always have old gcc, coreutils, bash, and everything else. They say its GPL, but there is a vendor lock-in, as always.
- cyphar 11y agoWhich is why I find Linus's childish view of the GPL so frustrating. He claims to have never used it for "user freedom" reasons (even though I'm sure that's how Richard Stallman would've persuaded him). If you frame the question of "is tivoisation bad" as "how could a psychopath use my code to harm users" it becomes clear that tivoisation is something we must reject.
- pksadiq 11y agoIts a fact that Linus doesn't even care about open source[0]. Then how will he be caring about software freedom? Hope, someday, we shall have GNU Hurd ready. Anyway, GNU guix is getting better. [0] http://www.techrepublic.com/article/linux-creator-linus-torvalds-doesnt-really-care-about-open-source/ http://www.techrepublic.com/article/linux-creator-linus-torv...
- lolidaisuki 11y agoHe used to care, sadly doesn't anymore.
- tdsamardzhiev 11y agoIndeed. He simply uses it because it's the best software development model. I think open source could use more people like him, though. P.S. Man, how I love downvotes without any arguments whatsoever.
- Jedd 11y agoThe string 'open source' appears three times in the article, the word 'free' doesn't appear (outside of the file listing, in the context of things like FreeScale, etc). The string 'open source' does not appear at all on either: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html or http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html Relevant as we're specifically referring here to the GNU Public Licence.
- zamalek 11y agoI've got a draft to our CEO sitting in my inbox outlining why we should open source some of our code - the majority of the argument posits that "technical investment" (as a corollary to technical debt) is possible. OSS can be viewed as a "technical share market," and by moving non-competitive code to open source you stand to reap "technical profit" or dividends. Not to mention that open-sourcing code usually entails a major cleanup effort (technical debt removal) prior to release. I've already got CoreCLR listed as a positive example of this process and I really hope that BMW is rewarded for compliance (with feedback and patches) - having more examples will only strengthen my point that more can be gained by working with open source, instead of merely consuming permissive open source. Either way, it's great to see compliance from such a large corporate.
- yjgyhj 11y agoSend it. If I can control and extend the computing environment in my car, I will buy that car. I will also release the code I write for it - which creates apps other car makers don't have.
- antaviana 11y agoIf you end up tweaking the breaking system, just don't do it too late at night and remember putting an "I hacked my car's software" sticker somewhere visible from other cars in the road.
- zamalek 11y agoFor any of this you'd likely need all the code and, if I'm understanding things correctly, this is only a partial dump (things licensed under GPL). That is an interesting point in terms of roadworthy legislation, though.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- LeifCarrotson 11y agoThe "braking" system - or was that typo intended? Either way, you don't need a license or even much in the way of special tools to replace the brake pads, rotors, calipers, or hoses on any vehicles on the road today. The parts are casually sold at tens of thousands of auto stores across the country in enormous volumes every day, many of them to ordinary men and women working on their cars in their garages. Not all of them get it right, but there is no outcry against this maintenance - why should there be a problem with software? To further assuage your fears, braking systems and other safety-critical components have layers of software and physical fail-safes. If the wheel sensors report unusual data, all-wheel-drive may be disabled. If the anti-lock code doesn't work, you still have regular brakes. If the vacuum assist doesn't work, you still have manual brakes. Similar layers are present in the steering and engine control. If a mechanic applies caliper grease to the brake pads, all of this is for naught - but there is little the software can do to completely disable the brakes.
- smegel 11y agoWhat about their in-house software that links against this software? Or is it all LGPL?
- bkuhn 11y agoAs someone who has enforced the GPL for a few decades, I have to note the GPL compliance process isn't done here yet. Someone actually has to verify that the "scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable"(s) actually work. Is anyone working on that?
- bkuhn 11y agoAs someone who has enforced the GPL for a few decades, I have to note the GPL compliance process isn't done here yet. Someone actually has to verify that the "scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable"(s) actually work. Is anyone working on that?