10 ms·

Let's discuss the source for the GPLed parts of Tesla cars

161 points by warp 7y ago

ex3ndr 7y ago
Just curious what prohibits Tesla to stop shipping updates for owners who will demand sources?
- Miner49er 7y ago
  A judge can order Tesla to stop distributing GPL'ed code. Which means they couldn't sell Teslas with it or ship firmware updates to anyone with it. Source: https://lwn.net/Articles/61292/ https://lwn.net/Articles/61292/ Relevant part: > You do have a choice under the GPL: you can stop using the stolen code and write your own, or you can decide you'd rather release under the GPL. But the choice is yours. If you say "I choose neither," the court can impose an injunction to stop you from further distribution, but it won't order your code released under the GPL. Your code remains yours, as you can see, even in a worst case scenario. Well really the whole article is relevant. It points out that the GPL is a license to use the GPL'ed code. If Tesla violates the conditions of that license, they can lose the right to use that code as a result. IANAL though.
  - sbx320 7y ago
    I think the question is rather if Tesla is allowed to provide source for current version you have (therefore complying with the GPL), but also refuse to ship any further updates to you as well. As you'd no longer receive the new binaries, you'd also no longer be entitled to the new sources per the GPL. This would leave Tesla with a large deterrent against people asking for sources.
    - esotericn 7y ago
      They are still shipping the software to others, but the copyright on that software is owned by the contributors and developers of said software. Consider the (artificial) case in which I start selling copies of Windows without a license. MS don't have to buy one of those copies in order to have a claim against me.
      - sbx320 7y ago
        Yes, Tesla would continue to be bound by the GPL for the new versions as well. However the GPL does not require you to offer the source to the public or any third parties at all that did not aquire the software legitimately. If I'd sell a custom Linux kernel to Microsoft, I'd not be required to give you the source for it, if you ask for it. Your Windows example doesn't really apply here, as Windows isn't GPL licensed. The big question is whether punishing users by no longer providing any updates after asking for sources is a GPL violation in itself. From the GPL FAQ [1]: > If I distribute GPLed software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge? > No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public. [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#DoesTheGPLRequireAvailabilityToPublic https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#DoesTheGPLRequi...
        gpm 7y ago
        This is, surprisingly since it's from the faq, incorrect. Here's the relevant text from the GPLv2 > 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.) C doesn't apply here (it's not non commercial, they didn't receive it like that, ...). A doesn't apply here unless they start just giving every customer the source. So we're in case B which requires them to give it to any third party. (IANAL)
    - heisenzombie 7y ago
      My guess is that imposing a punishment for exercising your right to the source code wouldn't hold up: "You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License." Also, once any person has the source code they explicitly have the right to distribute it. So even if the punishment was imposed, it would only apply to the first person (who could then e.g. upload it to GitHub for everyone else). Maybe someone with a written-off Tesla would do that?
      - xeromal 7y ago
        It's not really punishment. You're not guaranteed updates when you buy the car.
        crooked-v 7y ago
        "You'll get X in future updates" is usually a prominent part of Tesla's marketing.
        NullPrefix 7y ago
        Long term AB testing, where A gets updates and B does not. Pretty standard in the industry.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  If Tesla does not abide by the terms of the copyright license governing the code they have chosen to use, they are in breach of that license and can be sued for damages for every instance of copyright violation--i.e., for every car sold--and can also be barred from using that code without a license going forward, meaning that they would be barred from selling cars until they either license the code or reprogram every car using the unlicensed code.
  - tzs 7y ago
    Assuming US law, to get damages for every car sold I believe that the plaintiff would have to be suing for actual damages. That's the monetary harm the infringement actually caused the plaintiff, and profits the defendant made from the infringement. Monetary harm would be hard to prove for purely GPL software. For software that is dual licensed under GPL and a non-free license that you have to pay to get, there is a much better chance plaintiff could make a case for monetary harm. Defendant's profits is more promising, but I believe that it is profits that can reasonably be attributed to the infringing material. Plaintiff's best bet for getting money out of a copyright suit in a case like this is to elect to ask for statutory damages rather than actual damages. Statutory damages are per infringed work, not per infringing copy. Statutory damages are from $750 to $30000, with the exact amount depending on the seriousness of the infringement and the worth of the infringer. The lower end can be lowered to as low as $200 if the court finds the the infringer was an "innocent infringer" (which would require the infringer to not know or have reason to know the work was copyrighted--a very unlikely possibility), and the higher end can be raised to as much as $150000 if the infringement was "willful".
    - henryfjordan 7y ago
      > Defendant's profits is more promising, but I believe that it is profits that can reasonably be attributed to the infringing material. Car doesn't run without Linux, Cool entertainment features don't work without Linux, Battery Management based on Linux? etc, etc...
- tzs 7y ago
  I don't remember the specific software involved, but there was some fairly important GPL software in the '90s that was used by several defense contractors that had something like that happen. There was a company that did a lot of development and maintenance on the software, and sold support for it. They strictly followed the GPL, so you could ask for and obtain the source from them. If you redistributed that source, however, they would no longer sell support to you. No one else was providing commercial support for it, so this was a strong enough incentive for those who needed support to refrain from redistributing the source.
- sbx320 7y ago
  There have been arguments (e.g. by Bruce Perens [1]) that this kind of behavior violating the GPLv2 section which prohibits the addition of further restrictions to the license, when the grsecurity team started doing similar things with their Linux patches. However this isn't really something that has been explored too far beyond that (at least to my knowledge). I'd personally tend towards this being more of a gap in the GPL's protections though, as forcing continued access to further updates would open a massive can of worms. Because then you'd need to figure out what is and what isn't a disallowed punishment for sharing GPL'd source code for any future contract between the two parties. [1] https://perens.com/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributory-infringement-risk-for-customers/ https://perens.com/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-c...
kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
Even with source how does one relink their GPL'ed code and replace the Tesla binaries?
- beering 7y ago
  At the very least, releasing their source would make available any bug fixes or enhancements they've made so that other users can choose to incorporate or learn from those changes. Yes, this is a case of tivoization in that you can't load modified bins onto your car, but arguably you don't want people to be doing that to their cars anyways.
- esotericn 7y ago
  Does the car have any GPLv3 software or only GPLv2? The article mentions busybox and linux which are both GPLv2 only.
  - kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
    So. GPL2 requires that you can replace the open source portions with your own changes.
    - snagglegaggle 7y ago
      Really? The GPLv3 was released in response to TiVoization.
wil421 7y ago
When will you be able to hack your car to get better performance? EVs kinda take the hotrodding fun out of cars. Being able to play with the software would bring a part of it back.
- xeromal 7y ago
  A jailbreak is definitely available for Teslas. The people who can do it are hard to find though.
  - Klathmon 7y ago
    It'll get easier over time, just like most cars. I think once EVs become more generally popular we will see more little modding companies pop up like they do for most ICE "performance-ey" cars, but even now there are a good amount of non-performance mods available for Tesla's. A popular one is a powered trunk for Model 3s that can even be closed from the app via a canbus interface. Hell my last car was an Audi TT, and there was a damn app you could buy that would let you root and modify the car!
    - xeromal 7y ago
      Yeah, once mechanics are more comfortable with the car, I could see more mods happening. Honestly, i'd love to find a crashed performance model 3 that I could steal the motors from and throw in my SR+. That feels like a mod that shouldn't be that complicated. The biggest hurdle would probably be getting the software to send the right signals to them.
- GhettoMaestro 7y ago
  Because managing battery life is pretty much the biggest challenge. Hotrodding will kill the batteries faster.
  - wil421 7y ago
    A heavily boosted or modded engine will kill MPGs in an ICE.
esotericn 7y ago
Chucked over an email. Not sure if this is specifically relevant, but just in case, I have a (minor) commit in BusyBox which is licensed under GPLv2. I'd love to have Tesla send me my source. ;)
- ones_and_zeros 7y ago
  Maybe a silly question, but if I run a for profit SaaS and I package my software with my business logic up in a linux container which uses alpine as a base (which uses busybox), am I required to release the code for my business?
  - cfallin 7y ago
    That's the difference between GPL and AGPL. GPL only requires source distribution if you distribute binaries, not if you run your binaries on your own server responding to requests from users. AGPL requires source distribution for any network-accessible service. (Unsurprisingly, there was a very very strict rule against using, coming within 100 meters of, looking funnily at, or even thinking in a passing way of any AGPL source internally when I was at a particular large internet company that was otherwise pretty open-source-friendly...)
    - LinuxBender 7y ago
      That is exactly the case at my current gig. It doesn't matter how many hours you put into a project. If any of the code is AGPL, our legal team will squash the project.
      - StudentStuff 7y ago
        Sounds like a very narrow minded legal team, AGPLv3 code is the core of many modern businesses.
        LinuxBender 7y ago
        Quite a few people here agree with you.
drewg123 7y ago
This will probably get downvoted, but this kind of thing is why companies avoid the GPL. There will be people inside the company saying they would not be having these issues if they'd have used a BSD based OS (like Sony, Apple, etc) or a completely closed source OS.
- jvreeland 7y ago
  They wouldn't have those issues... if they released the source. Like they agreed they would.
- esotericn 7y ago
  This is the same kind of reasoning that has companies pulling the 'Not Available for Legal Reasons' nonsense and self-censoring their websites in the EU. They wouldn't be having these issues if they just did the right thing to begin with for all of their users.
- LeoPanthera 7y ago
  Are you really sympathizing with companies on this one? It's not like how the GPL works is a mystery. If you use the code, you release the source. It's not fucking rocket science. And even if it was, Elon's companies have some experience with rocket science.
  - odshoifsdhfs 7y ago
    I really think you win the internet for the day with that last phrase :)
- danShumway 7y ago
  Then fine, don't use Linux. What is the point of the GPL if companies aren't going to respect it? Personally, I was about to comment that this letter seems way too charitable. If Tesla was using a closed source OS like Windows, and wasn't following the terms of that license agreement, do you think Microsoft would write a letter to Tesla owners politely asking them to get involved in the conversation, or do you think Microsoft would bust out some lawyers and tell Tesla in no uncertain terms exactly what was going to happen if they didn't immediately get their act together? If anything, an article like this makes me more likely to use GPL code, because apparently I can deliberately violate the legal terms for years and get off by just ignoring a few cordially written letters. I guess it was foolish for me to be so worried about its viral nature, since that part appears to be optional.
weinzierl 7y ago
Some time ago there was a story about how BMW sent a DVD to a guy who asked for the GPL software in his i3 (BMW's electric car)[1]. It was also discussed on HN [2]. [1] https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2016/03/bmw-are-complying-with-the-gpl/ https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2016/03/bmw-are-complying-with-the-... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11384968 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11384968
- ossguy 7y ago
  It looks like BMW is not in compliance. As far as I can tell, no one has done a complete corresponding source (CCS) check on that code like we did for Tesla: https://lists.sfconservancy.org/pipermail/ccs-review/2018-May/000000.html https://lists.sfconservancy.org/pipermail/ccs-review/2018-Ma... A brief look at the code BMW provided suggests they haven't provided any information on how to build or install the code, both of which are required by the GPL. If you do find or receive source code from other car manufacturers, please try to build it before concluding that they are compliant. If you have trouble, please report this issue to us at https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/#reporting https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/#reporting and we'll do our best to help.
_Microft 7y ago
Honest question: if someone modifies the software of their car, will it still be street-legal?
- duxup 7y ago
  In the US there's no prohibition on modifying car software that all by itself. In the US you can do so without copyright risks. IMO (not a lawyer) the result is what the legal question would be. If you modified your car and it started pumping out emissions that would be otherwise illegal I'd be a bit concerned about that.
  - asguy 7y ago
    California would have issues with modifications to any emissions related software, even if your modifications meet or beat standards. They require testing by certified labs and proper state-granted exemptions. Even on your own personal car. It’s a ridiculous burden.
    - not2b 7y ago
      If you modify your emissions related software, how do you know that your modifications meet or beat standards? You determine this by having someone who is qualified, and documented to be qualified (like a certified lab) do the testing. Since a prime motivation for mods is to get more performance out of a car even at the price of 10x the pollution, it isn't surprising that many jurisdictions regulate this.
- freedrock87 7y ago
  Same q for combustion engines
  - JohnFen 7y ago
    For both questions, the answer is "yes, depending". I don't think there are different legal requirements for electric vs gasoline cars. In both cases, you can modify them all you want without running afoul of the laws about motor vehicles. However, in both cases, you can absolutely make modifications that render the vehicle no longer street legal. Removing the turn signals would do it, for instance.
Google234 7y ago
This is why the GPL is toxic. If you include it your software someone can request your source code and then compile it and release it for free.
- kiba 7y ago
  If you include it your software someone can request your source code and then compile it and release it for free. Why do you think it's ethically bad?
- yarrel 7y ago
  They can only request the source code if you give them the binary. So sell them the binary and relax.
  - xeromal 7y ago
    Does that mean if Tesla charged $1 for the software on their cars, they wouldn't need to give their source code?
    - progval 7y ago
      No, they still have to provide it on request.
    - esotericn 7y ago
      They need to give the source code to the recipients of the binaries who are then free to release the source code (or not) as they see fit.
      - xeromal 7y ago
        Thanks for the clarification
    - tialaramex 7y ago
      The GPL gives them a few options for how to ensure everybody can modify GPL software which you've supplied as a binary 1. Supply a preferred form for modification (e.g. a source tarball on a CD) which of course is GPL'd and so the recipient can copy it and modify it as they choose. 2. Provide a written offer, valid for at least 3 years which says you'll give ANYBODY the source code if they ask 3. Only if you got the software from somebody else and are now passing it on non-commercially (e.g. to a friend) you can pass on an offer you got under (2) so they can use it since it says ANYBODY. You'll notice that complying is _incredibly simple_ if you actually want to. Anybody with even a halfway competent process for shipping code could add a "Make CD image of source code" feature to it in a day. But no, there isn't any way to avoid complying, except as with anything in copyright law you could just refuse to comply and then eventually maybe you get taken to court and you pretend you just didn't understand the rules. Unlike in the music industry it seems to be very hard in software to get judges to accept the idea that egregious and ongoing unauthorised use must result in destroying the unauthorised artefacts at the cost of the violator. e.g. if you just publish somebody else's bassline in your new single, the judge will tell you to buy back copies sold to stores, then burn them all, and eat the cost. But you can guess Tesla won't be obliged to buy back every single Tesla car sold with non-compliant software and then scrap them and go bankrupt.
alexis_fr 7y ago
GPL is transitive, so does that mean all software in the Tesla becomes GPL? If not, please explain. GPL has no linkage/classpath exception.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > GPL is transitive, so does that mean all software in the Tesla becomes GPL? Not necessarily. > If not, please explain. GPL has no linkage/classpath exception It does exclude aggregation; not all software delivered in a lump with GPL code is necessarily part of the same work for copyright purposes, and therefore for GPL purposes.
- singron 7y ago
  Software that isn't linked with GPL sources probably isn't GPL. If it's just the linux kernel and busybox, then probably all the interesting userspace software isn't GPL since it wouldn't be linked.
sys_64738 7y ago
Has anybody emailed Musk directly about this? As somebody who made his money on the back of the tech industry he should get the need to give back.
- geofft 7y ago
  ??? Most people who make money on the back of X do not feel the need to give back, and most people who diligently give back do not make Musk levels of money, no?
arshbot 7y ago
Unfortunately, this is par for the course for any large public "tech" company. Releasing their source proactively isn't a source of profit so it is simply not done until people have to beg for it.

161 points by warp 7y ago

ex3ndr 7y ago

Just curious what prohibits Tesla to stop shipping updates for owners who will demand sources?

Miner49er 7y ago
A judge can order Tesla to stop distributing GPL'ed code. Which means they couldn't sell Teslas with it or ship firmware updates to anyone with it. Source: https://lwn.net/Articles/61292/ https://lwn.net/Articles/61292/ Relevant part: > You do have a choice under the GPL: you can stop using the stolen code and write your own, or you can decide you'd rather release under the GPL. But the choice is yours. If you say "I choose neither," the court can impose an injunction to stop you from further distribution, but it won't order your code released under the GPL. Your code remains yours, as you can see, even in a worst case scenario. Well really the whole article is relevant. It points out that the GPL is a license to use the GPL'ed code. If Tesla violates the conditions of that license, they can lose the right to use that code as a result. IANAL though.
- sbx320 7y ago
  I think the question is rather if Tesla is allowed to provide source for current version you have (therefore complying with the GPL), but also refuse to ship any further updates to you as well. As you'd no longer receive the new binaries, you'd also no longer be entitled to the new sources per the GPL. This would leave Tesla with a large deterrent against people asking for sources.
  - esotericn 7y ago
    They are still shipping the software to others, but the copyright on that software is owned by the contributors and developers of said software. Consider the (artificial) case in which I start selling copies of Windows without a license. MS don't have to buy one of those copies in order to have a claim against me.
    - sbx320 7y ago
      Yes, Tesla would continue to be bound by the GPL for the new versions as well. However the GPL does not require you to offer the source to the public or any third parties at all that did not aquire the software legitimately. If I'd sell a custom Linux kernel to Microsoft, I'd not be required to give you the source for it, if you ask for it. Your Windows example doesn't really apply here, as Windows isn't GPL licensed. The big question is whether punishing users by no longer providing any updates after asking for sources is a GPL violation in itself. From the GPL FAQ [1]: > If I distribute GPLed software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge? > No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public. [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#DoesTheGPLRequireAvailabilityToPublic https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#DoesTheGPLRequi...
      - gpm 7y ago
        This is, surprisingly since it's from the faq, incorrect. Here's the relevant text from the GPLv2 > 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.) C doesn't apply here (it's not non commercial, they didn't receive it like that, ...). A doesn't apply here unless they start just giving every customer the source. So we're in case B which requires them to give it to any third party. (IANAL)
  - heisenzombie 7y ago
    My guess is that imposing a punishment for exercising your right to the source code wouldn't hold up: "You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License." Also, once any person has the source code they explicitly have the right to distribute it. So even if the punishment was imposed, it would only apply to the first person (who could then e.g. upload it to GitHub for everyone else). Maybe someone with a written-off Tesla would do that?
    - xeromal 7y ago
      It's not really punishment. You're not guaranteed updates when you buy the car.
      - crooked-v 7y ago
        "You'll get X in future updates" is usually a prominent part of Tesla's marketing.
      - NullPrefix 7y ago
        Long term AB testing, where A gets updates and B does not. Pretty standard in the industry.
gamblor956 7y ago
If Tesla does not abide by the terms of the copyright license governing the code they have chosen to use, they are in breach of that license and can be sued for damages for every instance of copyright violation--i.e., for every car sold--and can also be barred from using that code without a license going forward, meaning that they would be barred from selling cars until they either license the code or reprogram every car using the unlicensed code.
- tzs 7y ago
  Assuming US law, to get damages for every car sold I believe that the plaintiff would have to be suing for actual damages. That's the monetary harm the infringement actually caused the plaintiff, and profits the defendant made from the infringement. Monetary harm would be hard to prove for purely GPL software. For software that is dual licensed under GPL and a non-free license that you have to pay to get, there is a much better chance plaintiff could make a case for monetary harm. Defendant's profits is more promising, but I believe that it is profits that can reasonably be attributed to the infringing material. Plaintiff's best bet for getting money out of a copyright suit in a case like this is to elect to ask for statutory damages rather than actual damages. Statutory damages are per infringed work, not per infringing copy. Statutory damages are from $750 to $30000, with the exact amount depending on the seriousness of the infringement and the worth of the infringer. The lower end can be lowered to as low as $200 if the court finds the the infringer was an "innocent infringer" (which would require the infringer to not know or have reason to know the work was copyrighted--a very unlikely possibility), and the higher end can be raised to as much as $150000 if the infringement was "willful".
  - henryfjordan 7y ago
    > Defendant's profits is more promising, but I believe that it is profits that can reasonably be attributed to the infringing material. Car doesn't run without Linux, Cool entertainment features don't work without Linux, Battery Management based on Linux? etc, etc...
tzs 7y ago
I don't remember the specific software involved, but there was some fairly important GPL software in the '90s that was used by several defense contractors that had something like that happen. There was a company that did a lot of development and maintenance on the software, and sold support for it. They strictly followed the GPL, so you could ask for and obtain the source from them. If you redistributed that source, however, they would no longer sell support to you. No one else was providing commercial support for it, so this was a strong enough incentive for those who needed support to refrain from redistributing the source.
sbx320 7y ago
There have been arguments (e.g. by Bruce Perens [1]) that this kind of behavior violating the GPLv2 section which prohibits the addition of further restrictions to the license, when the grsecurity team started doing similar things with their Linux patches. However this isn't really something that has been explored too far beyond that (at least to my knowledge). I'd personally tend towards this being more of a gap in the GPL's protections though, as forcing continued access to further updates would open a massive can of worms. Because then you'd need to figure out what is and what isn't a disallowed punishment for sharing GPL'd source code for any future contract between the two parties. [1] https://perens.com/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributory-infringement-risk-for-customers/ https://perens.com/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-c...

kevin_thibedeau 7y ago

Even with source how does one relink their GPL'ed code and replace the Tesla binaries?

beering 7y ago
At the very least, releasing their source would make available any bug fixes or enhancements they've made so that other users can choose to incorporate or learn from those changes. Yes, this is a case of tivoization in that you can't load modified bins onto your car, but arguably you don't want people to be doing that to their cars anyways.
esotericn 7y ago
Does the car have any GPLv3 software or only GPLv2? The article mentions busybox and linux which are both GPLv2 only.
- kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
  So. GPL2 requires that you can replace the open source portions with your own changes.
  - snagglegaggle 7y ago
    Really? The GPLv3 was released in response to TiVoization.

wil421 7y ago

When will you be able to hack your car to get better performance? EVs kinda take the hotrodding fun out of cars. Being able to play with the software would bring a part of it back.

xeromal 7y ago
A jailbreak is definitely available for Teslas. The people who can do it are hard to find though.
- Klathmon 7y ago
  It'll get easier over time, just like most cars. I think once EVs become more generally popular we will see more little modding companies pop up like they do for most ICE "performance-ey" cars, but even now there are a good amount of non-performance mods available for Tesla's. A popular one is a powered trunk for Model 3s that can even be closed from the app via a canbus interface. Hell my last car was an Audi TT, and there was a damn app you could buy that would let you root and modify the car!
  - xeromal 7y ago
    Yeah, once mechanics are more comfortable with the car, I could see more mods happening. Honestly, i'd love to find a crashed performance model 3 that I could steal the motors from and throw in my SR+. That feels like a mod that shouldn't be that complicated. The biggest hurdle would probably be getting the software to send the right signals to them.
GhettoMaestro 7y ago
Because managing battery life is pretty much the biggest challenge. Hotrodding will kill the batteries faster.
- wil421 7y ago
  A heavily boosted or modded engine will kill MPGs in an ICE.

esotericn 7y ago

Chucked over an email. Not sure if this is specifically relevant, but just in case, I have a (minor) commit in BusyBox which is licensed under GPLv2. I'd love to have Tesla send me my source. ;)

ones_and_zeros 7y ago
Maybe a silly question, but if I run a for profit SaaS and I package my software with my business logic up in a linux container which uses alpine as a base (which uses busybox), am I required to release the code for my business?
- cfallin 7y ago
  That's the difference between GPL and AGPL. GPL only requires source distribution if you distribute binaries, not if you run your binaries on your own server responding to requests from users. AGPL requires source distribution for any network-accessible service. (Unsurprisingly, there was a very very strict rule against using, coming within 100 meters of, looking funnily at, or even thinking in a passing way of any AGPL source internally when I was at a particular large internet company that was otherwise pretty open-source-friendly...)
  - LinuxBender 7y ago
    That is exactly the case at my current gig. It doesn't matter how many hours you put into a project. If any of the code is AGPL, our legal team will squash the project.
    - StudentStuff 7y ago
      Sounds like a very narrow minded legal team, AGPLv3 code is the core of many modern businesses.
      - LinuxBender 7y ago
        Quite a few people here agree with you.

drewg123 7y ago

This will probably get downvoted, but this kind of thing is why companies avoid the GPL. There will be people inside the company saying they would not be having these issues if they'd have used a BSD based OS (like Sony, Apple, etc) or a completely closed source OS.

jvreeland 7y ago
They wouldn't have those issues... if they released the source. Like they agreed they would.
esotericn 7y ago
This is the same kind of reasoning that has companies pulling the 'Not Available for Legal Reasons' nonsense and self-censoring their websites in the EU. They wouldn't be having these issues if they just did the right thing to begin with for all of their users.
LeoPanthera 7y ago
Are you really sympathizing with companies on this one? It's not like how the GPL works is a mystery. If you use the code, you release the source. It's not fucking rocket science. And even if it was, Elon's companies have some experience with rocket science.
- odshoifsdhfs 7y ago
  I really think you win the internet for the day with that last phrase :)
danShumway 7y ago
Then fine, don't use Linux. What is the point of the GPL if companies aren't going to respect it? Personally, I was about to comment that this letter seems way too charitable. If Tesla was using a closed source OS like Windows, and wasn't following the terms of that license agreement, do you think Microsoft would write a letter to Tesla owners politely asking them to get involved in the conversation, or do you think Microsoft would bust out some lawyers and tell Tesla in no uncertain terms exactly what was going to happen if they didn't immediately get their act together? If anything, an article like this makes me more likely to use GPL code, because apparently I can deliberately violate the legal terms for years and get off by just ignoring a few cordially written letters. I guess it was foolish for me to be so worried about its viral nature, since that part appears to be optional.

weinzierl 7y ago

Some time ago there was a story about how BMW sent a DVD to a guy who asked for the GPL software in his i3 (BMW's electric car)[1]. It was also discussed on HN [2]. [1] https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2016/03/bmw-are-complying-with-the-gpl/ https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2016/03/bmw-are-complying-with-the-... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11384968 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11384968

ossguy 7y ago
It looks like BMW is not in compliance. As far as I can tell, no one has done a complete corresponding source (CCS) check on that code like we did for Tesla: https://lists.sfconservancy.org/pipermail/ccs-review/2018-May/000000.html https://lists.sfconservancy.org/pipermail/ccs-review/2018-Ma... A brief look at the code BMW provided suggests they haven't provided any information on how to build or install the code, both of which are required by the GPL. If you do find or receive source code from other car manufacturers, please try to build it before concluding that they are compliant. If you have trouble, please report this issue to us at https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/#reporting https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/#reporting and we'll do our best to help.

_Microft 7y ago

Honest question: if someone modifies the software of their car, will it still be street-legal?

duxup 7y ago
In the US there's no prohibition on modifying car software that all by itself. In the US you can do so without copyright risks. IMO (not a lawyer) the result is what the legal question would be. If you modified your car and it started pumping out emissions that would be otherwise illegal I'd be a bit concerned about that.
- asguy 7y ago
  California would have issues with modifications to any emissions related software, even if your modifications meet or beat standards. They require testing by certified labs and proper state-granted exemptions. Even on your own personal car. It’s a ridiculous burden.
  - not2b 7y ago
    If you modify your emissions related software, how do you know that your modifications meet or beat standards? You determine this by having someone who is qualified, and documented to be qualified (like a certified lab) do the testing. Since a prime motivation for mods is to get more performance out of a car even at the price of 10x the pollution, it isn't surprising that many jurisdictions regulate this.
freedrock87 7y ago
Same q for combustion engines
- JohnFen 7y ago
  For both questions, the answer is "yes, depending". I don't think there are different legal requirements for electric vs gasoline cars. In both cases, you can modify them all you want without running afoul of the laws about motor vehicles. However, in both cases, you can absolutely make modifications that render the vehicle no longer street legal. Removing the turn signals would do it, for instance.

Google234 7y ago

This is why the GPL is toxic. If you include it your software someone can request your source code and then compile it and release it for free.

kiba 7y ago
If you include it your software someone can request your source code and then compile it and release it for free. Why do you think it's ethically bad?
yarrel 7y ago
They can only request the source code if you give them the binary. So sell them the binary and relax.
- xeromal 7y ago
  Does that mean if Tesla charged $1 for the software on their cars, they wouldn't need to give their source code?
  - progval 7y ago
    No, they still have to provide it on request.
  - esotericn 7y ago
    They need to give the source code to the recipients of the binaries who are then free to release the source code (or not) as they see fit.
    - xeromal 7y ago
      Thanks for the clarification
  - tialaramex 7y ago
    The GPL gives them a few options for how to ensure everybody can modify GPL software which you've supplied as a binary 1. Supply a preferred form for modification (e.g. a source tarball on a CD) which of course is GPL'd and so the recipient can copy it and modify it as they choose. 2. Provide a written offer, valid for at least 3 years which says you'll give ANYBODY the source code if they ask 3. Only if you got the software from somebody else and are now passing it on non-commercially (e.g. to a friend) you can pass on an offer you got under (2) so they can use it since it says ANYBODY. You'll notice that complying is _incredibly simple_ if you actually want to. Anybody with even a halfway competent process for shipping code could add a "Make CD image of source code" feature to it in a day. But no, there isn't any way to avoid complying, except as with anything in copyright law you could just refuse to comply and then eventually maybe you get taken to court and you pretend you just didn't understand the rules. Unlike in the music industry it seems to be very hard in software to get judges to accept the idea that egregious and ongoing unauthorised use must result in destroying the unauthorised artefacts at the cost of the violator. e.g. if you just publish somebody else's bassline in your new single, the judge will tell you to buy back copies sold to stores, then burn them all, and eat the cost. But you can guess Tesla won't be obliged to buy back every single Tesla car sold with non-compliant software and then scrap them and go bankrupt.

alexis_fr 7y ago

GPL is transitive, so does that mean all software in the Tesla becomes GPL? If not, please explain. GPL has no linkage/classpath exception.

dragonwriter 7y ago
> GPL is transitive, so does that mean all software in the Tesla becomes GPL? Not necessarily. > If not, please explain. GPL has no linkage/classpath exception It does exclude aggregation; not all software delivered in a lump with GPL code is necessarily part of the same work for copyright purposes, and therefore for GPL purposes.
singron 7y ago
Software that isn't linked with GPL sources probably isn't GPL. If it's just the linux kernel and busybox, then probably all the interesting userspace software isn't GPL since it wouldn't be linked.

sys_64738 7y ago

Has anybody emailed Musk directly about this? As somebody who made his money on the back of the tech industry he should get the need to give back.

geofft 7y ago
??? Most people who make money on the back of X do not feel the need to give back, and most people who diligently give back do not make Musk levels of money, no?

arshbot 7y ago

Unfortunately, this is par for the course for any large public "tech" company. Releasing their source proactively isn't a source of profit so it is simply not done until people have to beg for it.