5 ms·

So is it possible, if you find some bug in the car's software, to fix it using this source and run the fixed code in the car? Because that was RMS' original mo

So is it possible, if you find some bug in the car's software, to fix it using this source and run the fixed code in the car? Because that was RMS' original motivation, that he couldn't fix the bug in his printer.

indrora 4y ago
No. The GPL doesn't have a (meaningful) mandate that the user be able to replace the software that is under the GPL. Only that the source be made available. This was fine in the 70s/80s when mainframes were the ruling class. Roughly a femtosecond after the market for embedded machines came along where the person setting up the system wasn't expected to have to compile the runtime environment, that died. Somewhere around THERAC-1 and the Altair.
- sdkgjajggaf 4y ago
  GPL v3 was specifically written to address this. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization#GNU_GPLv3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization#GNU_GPLv3 That's why quite a few new products are still using old GPL v2 licensed software.
  - tzs 4y ago
    It should be noted that the Tivoization clause in GPLv3 is pretty narrow. It only covers software that you acquire in the same transaction in which you acquire the locked down hardware.
    - joezydeco 4y ago
      For embedded systems (like a TiVo or a car) there's no other software being installed. That "narrow" case is the entire case. I'm currently working on a product for a well-known company and there's a corporate ban on GPLv3. And we do get audited.
      - tzs 4y ago
        > For embedded systems (like a TiVo or a car) there's no other software being installed. For now anyway. I would be surprised if cars do not end up with apps. The car will come with the base software installed and then you can later buy apps for your car from an app store run by the car maker.
        joezydeco 4y ago
        The high adoption rate of CarPlay and Android Auto by the car makers leads me to believe they have zero interest in doing this.
      - yuhong 4y ago
        It also applies only to "“User Product” is either (1) a “consumer product”, which means any tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling."
    - oliwarner 4y ago
      So it would apply here if the cars software were under GPL v3?
    - em-bee 4y ago
      that would be good enough to apply to cars
  - johannes1234321 4y ago
    Seither using GPLv2 or replacements using BSD software (see for instance how MacOS replaced GPL Software)
  - nvr219 4y ago
    > That's why quite a few new products are still using old GPL v2 licensed software. Like how macOS ships with bash 2.7 or whatever
    - redprince 4y ago
      That would an odd reason, because Apple could comply easily. Source and development tools to translate them into binary are readily available. And you can still install software that you yourself built without a hassle last I checked.
onphonenow 4y ago
No, they need to make the software available, and you can use it in your own car if you will share your changes as well. But you can't run the "fixed" code in the car (ie, disable rev limits / speed restrictions etc). That said, "tuners" do sometimes flash updated settings, but it normally voids the warranty.
- User23 4y ago
  It might also violate your local emissions laws, among others.
  - onphonenow 4y ago
    That is actually the point of a lot of the hacks. For truck racing normally you remove emissions controls than reflash engine parameters to take advantage of whatever benefits. There is a bit of excitement for "right to repair" laws as it may let folks keep warranties and/or make it easier to bypass various protections and limits.
    - IYasha 4y ago
      Technically, it's more "right to modify" or "own" than "right to repair". But we can hope... )
- salawat 4y ago
  You can run the "fixed" code even if you don't share your changes. But if you share your changed code's binaries, you are bound to share the source for them. No comment on street legality.
  - onphonenow 4y ago
    Fair point, at least in tech this allows a lot of "SAAS" companies to keep changes private. Not sure how that would work with a car on a road driven by a user? That feels like distribution to me.

indrora 4y ago

No. The GPL doesn't have a (meaningful) mandate that the user be able to replace the software that is under the GPL. Only that the source be made available. This was fine in the 70s/80s when mainframes were the ruling class. Roughly a femtosecond after the market for embedded machines came along where the person setting up the system wasn't expected to have to compile the runtime environment, that died. Somewhere around THERAC-1 and the Altair.

sdkgjajggaf 4y ago
GPL v3 was specifically written to address this. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization#GNU_GPLv3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization#GNU_GPLv3 That's why quite a few new products are still using old GPL v2 licensed software.
- tzs 4y ago
  It should be noted that the Tivoization clause in GPLv3 is pretty narrow. It only covers software that you acquire in the same transaction in which you acquire the locked down hardware.
  - joezydeco 4y ago
    For embedded systems (like a TiVo or a car) there's no other software being installed. That "narrow" case is the entire case. I'm currently working on a product for a well-known company and there's a corporate ban on GPLv3. And we do get audited.
    - tzs 4y ago
      > For embedded systems (like a TiVo or a car) there's no other software being installed. For now anyway. I would be surprised if cars do not end up with apps. The car will come with the base software installed and then you can later buy apps for your car from an app store run by the car maker.
      - joezydeco 4y ago
        The high adoption rate of CarPlay and Android Auto by the car makers leads me to believe they have zero interest in doing this.
    - yuhong 4y ago
      It also applies only to "“User Product” is either (1) a “consumer product”, which means any tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling."
  - oliwarner 4y ago
    So it would apply here if the cars software were under GPL v3?
  - em-bee 4y ago
    that would be good enough to apply to cars
- johannes1234321 4y ago
  Seither using GPLv2 or replacements using BSD software (see for instance how MacOS replaced GPL Software)
- nvr219 4y ago
  > That's why quite a few new products are still using old GPL v2 licensed software. Like how macOS ships with bash 2.7 or whatever
  - redprince 4y ago
    That would an odd reason, because Apple could comply easily. Source and development tools to translate them into binary are readily available. And you can still install software that you yourself built without a hassle last I checked.

onphonenow 4y ago

No, they need to make the software available, and you can use it in your own car if you will share your changes as well. But you can't run the "fixed" code in the car (ie, disable rev limits / speed restrictions etc). That said, "tuners" do sometimes flash updated settings, but it normally voids the warranty.

User23 4y ago
It might also violate your local emissions laws, among others.
- onphonenow 4y ago
  That is actually the point of a lot of the hacks. For truck racing normally you remove emissions controls than reflash engine parameters to take advantage of whatever benefits. There is a bit of excitement for "right to repair" laws as it may let folks keep warranties and/or make it easier to bypass various protections and limits.
  - IYasha 4y ago
    Technically, it's more "right to modify" or "own" than "right to repair". But we can hope... )
salawat 4y ago
You can run the "fixed" code even if you don't share your changes. But if you share your changed code's binaries, you are bound to share the source for them. No comment on street legality.
- onphonenow 4y ago
  Fair point, at least in tech this allows a lot of "SAAS" companies to keep changes private. Not sure how that would work with a car on a road driven by a user? That feels like distribution to me.