> 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 imple

> 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. I hear you, but isn't this one of the reasons for wanting compliance around the (L)GPL? It allows us, the owners of the vehicle and users of the software to make that inspection, and hopefully, patch the vulnerabilities in the software, right? (I believe one of the provisions of the LGPL is that it must be possible to replace the LGPL'd software with a different version — this is why most software dynamically links to LGPL libraries: it allows the .so/.dll to be "simply" swapped out for a different one.)