4 ms·

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

by ex3ndr 7y ago

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...

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

by ex3ndr 7y ago

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

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...