15 ms·

Louis Rossmann could sue John Deere for GPL violation [video]

337 points by theden 4y ago

daeros 4y ago
[dead]
charcircuit 4y ago
He can't since he is not the copyright owner of the GPL software. Additionally, he misunderstands what a lawsuit over GPL infringement does. You can not be forced to give out code. I don't even understand what they are expecting to get. I don't see how being sent a link to https://www.gnu.org/software/bash https://www.gnu.org/software/bash or similar for the various software that may be installed suddenly makes your life better even though you can just google for it.
- LelouBil 4y ago
  > You can not be forced to give out code. Can you explain this in more detail ? I thought that was the case.
  - Drakim 4y ago
    If you violate the license that allows you to use some code, and the license says that any violation terminates the license, then you are technically stealing the code by using it (basic copyright infringement). So you could be sued for that, in the same way you could be sued for using any code you aren't allowed to use. There would be damages awarded in fines, and maybe even prison time in theory. As an extreme example, if I wrote a software license that makes you my lifelong slave for using my software, and you use it without becoming my slave, then no judge is going to enforce slavery upon you. But they might fine you for stealing my software.
    - MrGilbert 4y ago
      > But they might fine you for stealing my software. I don't think it's that easy. ;)
    - hgomersall 4y ago
      No, you are not technically stealing; you are technically infringing copyright. I appreciate you put that in brackets, but it still isn't stealing (technically or otherwise).
      - Drakim 4y ago
        You are totally right, I was trying to ELI5 my language but ended up taking it too far.
    - JanisErdmanis 4y ago
      In “Intelectual property and open source” an alternative interpretation of GPL is given as a contract due to way it is written. So the code company is shipping along with GPL can be looked as violation if I understood that correctly. This is the stick which makes Qt business model with LGPL to work.
    - quickthrower2 4y ago
      IANAL but i suspect the slave thing would be void but otherwise the license would still stand. Otherwise people could bury ridiculous clauses in licenses to trick people into not really having a license.
    - andreareina 4y ago
      The difference is that I don't think you're able to sell yourself into slavery so that contract is void.
    - afiori 4y ago
      The judge would not order to release the code, but John Deere could likely avoid paying (most of) the fine it they instead decided to release the source code.
      - squarefoot 4y ago
        Which wouldn't help much if they keep their hardware encrypted and locked, de facto preventing users from checking that the hardware actually runs the released code, therefore giving no guarantees against planned obsolescence and other tricks.
        the_pwner224 4y ago
        That's not the purpose of the GPLv2. If JD published their source code they would fulfill all the obligations of the license. Doesn't matter if their hardware is locked down.
        pabs3 4y ago
        That is a misconception, the GPLv2 also provides users the right to modify, rebuild and reinstall software on their devices. https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-the-gpl-right-to-install/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t... However, with both GPLv2 and GPLv3, a vendor of an aggregation of copyleft and proprietary software can legally cause the the proprietary software to stop working when the copyleft software is modified. I think this hasn't been tested in court though, but the license as they are written both allow this. This would essentially brick your car/tractor until you rewrote that proprietary software from scratch. https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Safely-Copylefted-Cars-Reexamining-GPLv3-Installation-Information-Requirements-ALS-Bradley-Kuhn-Behan-Webster-1.pdf https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017...
  - GlacierFox 4y ago
    Yeah that was my impression too. Or are all these open source licenses essentially toilet paper?
    - nix23 4y ago
      [dead]
    - tsimionescu 4y ago
      The point is that you don't have a right to distribute the software unless you give out source code. However, that doesn't mean that a court can you force you to give out the source code - they are far more likely to force you to stop distribution altogether, and pay damages for whatever occurred. Whether any company in it's right mind would find it preferable to settle the case by abiding by the terms of the license or not is debatable of course.
  - viraptor 4y ago
    They may be forced to pay a fine to the authors / court / customers and release a version without the infringement for example.
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    Pretty much only 3 things can happen if you violate someone's software copyright and are sued for it. - You could have to stop violating the person's copyright. - You could have to pay damages - You could have to go to jail Example: Lets say Lindows is a piece of software whose license only lets you distribute it in Louisiana. If you start distributing it in California and get sued you don't have to do something like transport all your clients to Louisiana and distribute the software to them a second time. You just will be prevented from doing any further distribution in California.
    - phkahler 4y ago
      A 4th option is to reach a settlement with the author agreeing to something else in lieu of the statutory punishments. This has been used to get source code released and bring the infringer into compliance.
    - elkos 4y ago
      Don't you still have to pay damages and maybe you have to do the time
      - colejohnson66 4y ago
        > maybe you have to do the time The only time anyone ever "do[es] time" is in criminal matters. Copyright infringement is a civil matter, and, in general, the only remedy the courts can provide is monetary. However, refusing to abide by the courts' orders can land you in contempt of court, which could (won't always) involve jail.
        elkos 4y ago
        My understanding is that in the United States of America copyright law is bith a matter of civil law and criminal law, as the tragic case of mr Aaron Swartz, that was threatened with fines of up to $100k & 10 years of jail for each copyright infringement violation. I do believe that the US law is Draconian, but you can't say "oh Swartz! yeah just a guy, let's bully him to oblivion with hundreds of years of jail time and million on fines" while at the same time say "Oh John Deere, that's a corporation, please follow the licensing of the software you use". It doesn't seem right to me.
  - f_devd 4y ago
    Seems like they can also pay damages and stop distribution of the product until it the infringement is removed, although in prior cases GPL often has been complied with in settlements https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_license_litigation#BusyBox_litigation_(2007-13) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_license_litigati...
  - kube-system 4y ago
    The court will force you to come back into compliance with the license. The GPL says that if you distribute binaries, you must distribute source. There are two different ways to comply with that. You can start distributing source, but you can also stop distributing binaries.
- rileymat2 4y ago
  I don’t know about standing but in a the face of enough instances of copyright violations, it is pretty easy to imagine a scenario where a company was more or less forced to agree to distribute in a deal in lieu of punitive damages?
- spyremeown 4y ago
  >He can't since he is not the copyright owner of the GPL software. Isn't the whole point of the GPL that the user has rights to the software?
  - raverbashing 4y ago
    True. Though I'd argue that maybe he'd need to be a John Deere equipment owner to sue (or partner with one I guess)
  - markdown 4y ago
    Does he own a green and yellow tractor?
    - spyremeown 4y ago
      Why are you confrontational? Maybe he does.
      - remix2000 4y ago
        Because it's but zanyism unless he does. Simply put, GPL does not allow you to request "source code" for what you never used.
        nordsieck 4y ago
        > Simply put, GPL does not allow you to request "source code" for what you never used. Sort of. The relevant section is: > 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: > 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, If the company elects to go with option b, then yes - the GPL does allow you to request "source code" for what you never used.
- Timshel 4y ago
  The title is quite different from the content of the video. His goal is to fund a lawyer to look into the issue. And looks to me he would just like screwing with John Deere.
  - PartiallyTyped 4y ago
    Louis Rossmann? The Louis Rossmann who has been pushing for Right to Repair? The Louis who has been advocating for R2R in electronics, auto, and agriculture sectors, who has been a PITA to politicians for a decade or so now and has most likely never missed a hearing regarding R2R? That Louis Rossmann would want to mess with John Deere? He would never!
  - heywhatupboys 4y ago
    From the register "Gingerich told us that the most widely-deployed GPL-covered software in Deere machinery is Linux. "As with most Linux distributions, it uses several other programs under copyleft (i.e. right to repair) licenses as well," he said." definitely just trolling
- dkjaudyeqooe 4y ago
  > You can not be forced to give out code. You can be forced to do whatever you agreed to do in a binding contract, if the action or contract isn't illegal. You don't present any basis for your claim. A court case like this could settle the matter. Since the GPL requires the derivative source to be released, anyone has standing to sue since anyone can request that code.
  - jeroenhd 4y ago
    I'm not so sure about that. The GPL does spell out the rights for end users pretty clearly, but the terms being violated apply between the copyright holder and the company violating the terms. Violating "you can use this code with these conditions" means you can't use the code (and may need to pay damages to the people you've stolen the code from), not that you're necessarily forced to apply those conditions. IANAL but I think you need to the a copyright holder to effectively enforce these terms through the court. If you violate a contract with your employer and don't deliver a product in time, I don't think the customers can sue you. Instead, as far as I know, the customers will sue the company and the company will sue you to cover the costs.
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    > Since the GPL requires the derivative source to be released, anyone has standing to sue since anyone can request that code. This is definitely wrong. If they refuse to provide source code, they are not abiding by the terms of the license, and thus presumably have no right to distribute that code. However, unless you are a copyright holder of the code they are distributing, there is no harm to you as a third party if the distributor is not respecting the terms of the license of the creator. At best, if they lose a lawsuit with the copyright holder and are forced to stop distributing the software and/or recall already distributed versions, you could then sue them for damages caused by their irresponsible behavior.
    - teddyh 4y ago
      > If they refuse to provide source code, they are not abiding by the terms of the license This is at best a simplification. The most common case is that a company has two options: Either provide the source code alongside every copy of the program, so that every recipient of the program has the source code already, or, alongside the program, provide a written offer, valid for three years, to provide source code on request. This offer, while required if the company chooses this option, is not part of the license! If a company does not provide source code on request, they have broken the promise provided by the offer, not the license, and can be sued for simply failing to uphold their promise. It then does not matter what the original licence says, or who the copyright holders are. And, of course, if a company provides neither the source code, nor such an offer of source code, they have already broken the license, and can be sued immediately; there is no need for anyone to request the source code. Doing so is just something many people do as an act of pure courtesy.
- FpUser 4y ago
  >"He can't since he is not the copyright owner of the GPL software." I am pretty sure he can convince copyright owner go give him power of attorney for specific case.
- tjpnz 4y ago
  If he's a user he can request the source code which they'll be required to provide per the terms of the GPL. The litigation kicks in if they don't comply. Whether Rossmann is the copyright owner or not is a minor point given he could throw his money and expertise behind whoever is.
- detourdog 4y ago
  He may not have standing due to not owning a tractor also.
  - pabs3 4y ago
    He can fund those who do though.
    - detourdog 4y ago
      Those with standing can do it on their own. In fact they seem to be the ones that have gotten it this far in the courts on their own.
      - pabs3 4y ago
        Legal costs are high, I expect they would welcome any funding they can get, both small donations from individual contributors and larger grants from Rossman and others. I definitely know that Conservancy would welcome funding. https://sfconservancy.org/donate/ https://sfconservancy.org/donate/
- boomboomsubban 4y ago
  >He can't since he is not the copyright owner of the GPL software. There is an ongoing case trying to establish the users right to sue over noncompliance of the GPL, see https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html, but you're right that currently only the copyright holder can sue. edit "can" is the wrong word, "have successfully sued." That said, there's thousands of copyright holders for Linux, if Rossman isn't one he can probably find one easily.
dkjaudyeqooe 4y ago
It would be useful to have a court case be litigated all the way to the Supreme Court to establish the enforceability of the GPL whereby the defendant is forced to share code against their will.
- hansjorg 4y ago
  The current supreme court is very unlikely to rule for an individual against a large company. https://www.axios.com/2022/08/04/supreme-court-john-roberts-business https://www.axios.com/2022/08/04/supreme-court-john-roberts-...
  - bee_rider 4y ago
    I wonder if the fact that lost of companies would like to stick lots of weird rules in their licenses could help here. Where’s John Deere in the pantheon of companies? They can’t be more powerful than the Googles and Faces Book of the world, right?
    - boomboomsubban 4y ago
      John Deere is the 84th largest company on the Fortune 500. It may be below Google or Facebook, but it's still a major player.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    I think they have confuse pro-government with pro-business. The Supreme court since FDR has been very resistant to role back the role of federal government, they have no problems smacking down state laws, but when it comes to rolling back federal laws or regulations well.... So here it would be determinative on which "side" the federal government chooses, or if the federal government stays silent which silence IMO is probably the most likely outcome for the federal government. If they stay out of the fight, I think Deere Loses. If the federal government defends Deere then I think it is more 50/50
- lakecresva 4y ago
  > whereby the defendant is forced to share code against their will. This remedy of compelling a party to do something they agreed to do is called 'specific performance', and US courts only even consider doing this when real property (land) is involved. For copyright infringement, generally what's available is injunctive relief preventing further infringement, disgorgement of profits, and statutory damages and attorneys fees as permitted by title 17. The injunction and disgorgement are the killers here that actually scare would-be infringers, and they mean that in most cases what you actually end up with is a settlement.
azubinski 4y ago
But why didn't he sue Xiaomi? Why? Life is pain and unanswered questions...
rurban 4y ago
A video? This is the better link https://www.theregister.com/2023/03/17/john_deere_sfc_gpl/ https://www.theregister.com/2023/03/17/john_deere_sfc_gpl/
- isodev 4y ago
  Thank you!
- heywhatupboys 4y ago
  > Gingerich told us that the most widely-deployed GPL-covered software in Deere machinery is Linux. "As with most Linux distributions, it uses several other programs under copyleft (i.e. right to repair) licenses as well," he said. what?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
    I see it as very hypocritical - Yeah we are ignoring licenses of others, but I dare you to install into "your" tractor a part which is not DRM signed by John Deere.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - ryukafalz 4y ago
    Somewhat confused reporting, but it sounds like Gingerich was probably referring to "Linux" colloquially, as in a Linux distribution. That would in most cases include other GPL software such as GNU coreutils, or possibly BusyBox. (And then The Register quoted that as Linux itself including other GPL'd programs, which isn't quite right.)
    - mattl 4y ago
      Meanwhile https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/mar/16/john-deere-gpl-violations/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/mar/16/john-deere-gpl-vi... doesn't mention Linux.
jeroenhd 4y ago
What I don't understand is why John Deer with their incredibly expensive tractors doesn't just use Windows CE or any other proprietary OS. They can afford it and it's not like Linux development is any easier than Windows development. Offtopic: is it true what he says about Apple pairing their sleep sensor chip to their security signatures? That would be such a scumbag move.
- klysm 4y ago
  I find Linux development significantly easier due to experience and I think that feeling could be shared by a lot of folks. There’s also value in working with open tools because you can take that knowledge and use it anywhere. If you become knowledgeable in enterprisey stuff you can get stuck doing enterprisey things
  - daemin 4y ago
    You're saying the same thing but with two different outcomes, as if by virtue of using open source tools you're not going to get stuck working at companies that also only use open source tools. Become experienced in open source tools so that you can work in companies that use open source tools. Become experienced in closed source tools so that you can work in companies that use closed source tools. It's the same thing so really it comes down to a matter of preference and experience. I am pretty much a Windows developer as that's generally been what I've done, and have very little experience writing code for Linux and other operating systems. I could do it in a pinch, and with some time I could adapt and become a more open source based developer, but that is not the environment where I am most productive.
    - klysm 4y ago
      Companies that used closed source tools can also use open source tools and more importantly _any_ company can use open source tools while the same is not true of closed source tools. I don't think it's really symmetric like you say it is. I do agree it's up to preference and experience though at the end of the day. Having experience in closed source tools can be very valuable because the cost of that knowledge is higher. Not everybody can just tinker with it.
Waterluvian 4y ago
He has standing to bring a suit?
- pabs3 4y ago
  He'll probably just fund those who do, he alludes to that in the video, says he has money in an account.
user3939382 4y ago
Reminder that John Deere is going around the country at the state level sabotaging right to repair bills while this is happening. This company is openly hostile to the public and needs to be reined* in.
- sclarisse 4y ago
  * reined, like a horse
  - sophacles 4y ago
    Do you think horses really want to be associated with a company that helped take away thier jobs?
    - cmcconomy 4y ago
      I think this probably keeps the average horse up at night
    - bch 4y ago
      Neigh impossible to find, I’m sure.
funstuff007 4y ago
This is beyond crazy. I can't image even trying to be a farmer without spending a good portion of my time repairing my tools, fences, etc.
qwertox 4y ago
From the referenced video "CT Wilson: the delegate blocking Right to Repair in Maryland" [0]: "You don't need the source code, to change your battery, ...". I'm somehow confronted with this with my VW car. The battery is close to dead, and I want to replace it. I can do that. Yet the car needs to be informed that it now has a new battery in order optimize its power management (it's not an electric car, it's basically the most simple modern VW). I need to go to the dealer and have them change the battery for me and reset the battery status, which is maybe 100€ in addition to the battery cost. If the source code would be publicly accessible, probably a cheap OBD-2 adapter would be capable of doing this. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej1MmjCPYqU&t=197s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej1MmjCPYqU&t=197s
- the_pwner224 4y ago
  For that specific issue, you don't need the source code, you need the dealer diagnostic/programming toolkit. Hyundai GDS, BMW ISTA, each manufacturer has their own but I believe they're mostly reskinned and customized 3rd party products (I think Mazda & Ford have a shared toolkit). These give you everything from the service manual (detailed info on how to do any repair operation, with steps and photos), diagnostic code scanning and guided troubleshooters, and access to the car's electronics for putting ECUs into service mode (like the electronic parking brake) or reprogramming them with updated firmware (which is complicated and you probably don't need to do it). The service steps will interface with the car's ECUs - if you need to change the transmission fluid, the software will prepare the transmission, help you get it up to temperature and maintain that temperature, and then reset the calibration of the transmission at the end. And it'll show the technician each mechanical step they have to do along the way. Very advanced stuff. You can generally get this software a normal person, but it's a expensive subscription: https://hyundaitechinfo.com/ https://hyundaitechinfo.com/ https://bmwtechinfo.bmwgroup.com/ https://bmwtechinfo.bmwgroup.com/ You can usually find cracked versions online, but recently they've been getting more and more locked down. As for your battery replacement thing, there are 3rd party phone apps which can do it. You'll just need a compatible OBD adapter. I don't know what it is for VW, but for BMW BimmerLink gives you diagnostic info and lets you reset the battery, and BimmerCode lets you change some config options in the car ECUs to enable some useful small QoL features. I'm sure there is similar software for VAG cars.
2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
Software licenses and closed-source software are at odds here. In the FOSS community it is easy to tell who borrowed your code and violated your license. Closed source software can choose to rip off everyone and it gets very difficult to enforce your open source license. Almost a rules for thee but not for me scenario that puts open source at a disadvantage.
quietbritishjim 4y ago
I don't understand what's going on here. The SFC blog post doesn't mention any specific program but, in the article in The Register, the SFC director is quoted talking about Linux in particular. But Linux is just GPLv2, so doesn't have an anti-Tivoisation [1] clause. In other words, you're free to put it on hardware in binary form (even after modifying it) and sell that hardware, and you're under no obligation to give away the source code to it or any of your own software. On the other hand, I'm sure the director of the SFC knows a lot more about this situation than I do, so I'm sure that there's something I'm missing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization
- pabs3 4y ago
  That is a misconception, the GPLv2 also provides users the right to modify, rebuild and reinstall software on their devices. https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-the-gpl-right-to-install/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t... However, with both GPLv2 and GPLv3, a vendor of an aggregation of copyleft and proprietary software can legally cause the the proprietary software to stop working when the copyleft software is modified. I think this hasn't been tested in court though, but the license as they are written both allow this. This would essentially brick your car/tractor until you rewrote that proprietary software from scratch. https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Safely-Copylefted-Cars-Reexamining-GPLv3-Installation-Information-Requirements-ALS-Bradley-Kuhn-Behan-Webster-1.pdf https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017...
  - quietbritishjim 4y ago
    You're right, I had misunderstood. Thanks for those very interesting links.
naikrovek 4y ago
> "When Deere does reply (we have heard from others that their legitimate requests for source code have been met with silence), they have always failed to include the 'scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable,' per GPLv2," Gingerich told The Register. source code modifications are required to be provided, build tools which are not modified from GPL source are not. is this really what someone is going to sue over?

337 points by theden 4y ago

[dead]

He can't since he is not the copyright owner of the GPL software. Additionally, he misunderstands what a lawsuit over GPL infringement does. You can not be forced to give out code. I don't even understand what they are expecting to get. I don't see how being sent a link to https://www.gnu.org/software/bash https://www.gnu.org/software/bash or similar for the various software that may be installed suddenly makes your life better even though you can just google for it.

LelouBil 4y ago
> You can not be forced to give out code. Can you explain this in more detail ? I thought that was the case.
- Drakim 4y ago
  If you violate the license that allows you to use some code, and the license says that any violation terminates the license, then you are technically stealing the code by using it (basic copyright infringement). So you could be sued for that, in the same way you could be sued for using any code you aren't allowed to use. There would be damages awarded in fines, and maybe even prison time in theory. As an extreme example, if I wrote a software license that makes you my lifelong slave for using my software, and you use it without becoming my slave, then no judge is going to enforce slavery upon you. But they might fine you for stealing my software.
  - MrGilbert 4y ago
    > But they might fine you for stealing my software. I don't think it's that easy. ;)
  - hgomersall 4y ago
    No, you are not technically stealing; you are technically infringing copyright. I appreciate you put that in brackets, but it still isn't stealing (technically or otherwise).
    - Drakim 4y ago
      You are totally right, I was trying to ELI5 my language but ended up taking it too far.
  - JanisErdmanis 4y ago
    In “Intelectual property and open source” an alternative interpretation of GPL is given as a contract due to way it is written. So the code company is shipping along with GPL can be looked as violation if I understood that correctly. This is the stick which makes Qt business model with LGPL to work.
  - quickthrower2 4y ago
    IANAL but i suspect the slave thing would be void but otherwise the license would still stand. Otherwise people could bury ridiculous clauses in licenses to trick people into not really having a license.
  - andreareina 4y ago
    The difference is that I don't think you're able to sell yourself into slavery so that contract is void.
  - afiori 4y ago
    The judge would not order to release the code, but John Deere could likely avoid paying (most of) the fine it they instead decided to release the source code.
    - squarefoot 4y ago
      Which wouldn't help much if they keep their hardware encrypted and locked, de facto preventing users from checking that the hardware actually runs the released code, therefore giving no guarantees against planned obsolescence and other tricks.
      - the_pwner224 4y ago
        That's not the purpose of the GPLv2. If JD published their source code they would fulfill all the obligations of the license. Doesn't matter if their hardware is locked down.
        pabs3 4y ago
        That is a misconception, the GPLv2 also provides users the right to modify, rebuild and reinstall software on their devices. https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-the-gpl-right-to-install/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t... However, with both GPLv2 and GPLv3, a vendor of an aggregation of copyleft and proprietary software can legally cause the the proprietary software to stop working when the copyleft software is modified. I think this hasn't been tested in court though, but the license as they are written both allow this. This would essentially brick your car/tractor until you rewrote that proprietary software from scratch. https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Safely-Copylefted-Cars-Reexamining-GPLv3-Installation-Information-Requirements-ALS-Bradley-Kuhn-Behan-Webster-1.pdf https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017...
- GlacierFox 4y ago
  Yeah that was my impression too. Or are all these open source licenses essentially toilet paper?
  - nix23 4y ago
    [dead]
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    The point is that you don't have a right to distribute the software unless you give out source code. However, that doesn't mean that a court can you force you to give out the source code - they are far more likely to force you to stop distribution altogether, and pay damages for whatever occurred. Whether any company in it's right mind would find it preferable to settle the case by abiding by the terms of the license or not is debatable of course.
- viraptor 4y ago
  They may be forced to pay a fine to the authors / court / customers and release a version without the infringement for example.
- charcircuit 4y ago
  Pretty much only 3 things can happen if you violate someone's software copyright and are sued for it. - You could have to stop violating the person's copyright. - You could have to pay damages - You could have to go to jail Example: Lets say Lindows is a piece of software whose license only lets you distribute it in Louisiana. If you start distributing it in California and get sued you don't have to do something like transport all your clients to Louisiana and distribute the software to them a second time. You just will be prevented from doing any further distribution in California.
  - phkahler 4y ago
    A 4th option is to reach a settlement with the author agreeing to something else in lieu of the statutory punishments. This has been used to get source code released and bring the infringer into compliance.
  - elkos 4y ago
    Don't you still have to pay damages and maybe you have to do the time
    - colejohnson66 4y ago
      > maybe you have to do the time The only time anyone ever "do[es] time" is in criminal matters. Copyright infringement is a civil matter, and, in general, the only remedy the courts can provide is monetary. However, refusing to abide by the courts' orders can land you in contempt of court, which could (won't always) involve jail.
      - elkos 4y ago
        My understanding is that in the United States of America copyright law is bith a matter of civil law and criminal law, as the tragic case of mr Aaron Swartz, that was threatened with fines of up to $100k & 10 years of jail for each copyright infringement violation. I do believe that the US law is Draconian, but you can't say "oh Swartz! yeah just a guy, let's bully him to oblivion with hundreds of years of jail time and million on fines" while at the same time say "Oh John Deere, that's a corporation, please follow the licensing of the software you use". It doesn't seem right to me.
- f_devd 4y ago
  Seems like they can also pay damages and stop distribution of the product until it the infringement is removed, although in prior cases GPL often has been complied with in settlements https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_license_litigation#BusyBox_litigation_(2007-13) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_license_litigati...
- kube-system 4y ago
  The court will force you to come back into compliance with the license. The GPL says that if you distribute binaries, you must distribute source. There are two different ways to comply with that. You can start distributing source, but you can also stop distributing binaries.
rileymat2 4y ago
I don’t know about standing but in a the face of enough instances of copyright violations, it is pretty easy to imagine a scenario where a company was more or less forced to agree to distribute in a deal in lieu of punitive damages?
spyremeown 4y ago
>He can't since he is not the copyright owner of the GPL software. Isn't the whole point of the GPL that the user has rights to the software?
- raverbashing 4y ago
  True. Though I'd argue that maybe he'd need to be a John Deere equipment owner to sue (or partner with one I guess)
- markdown 4y ago
  Does he own a green and yellow tractor?
  - spyremeown 4y ago
    Why are you confrontational? Maybe he does.
    - remix2000 4y ago
      Because it's but zanyism unless he does. Simply put, GPL does not allow you to request "source code" for what you never used.
      - nordsieck 4y ago
        > Simply put, GPL does not allow you to request "source code" for what you never used. Sort of. The relevant section is: > 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: > 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, If the company elects to go with option b, then yes - the GPL does allow you to request "source code" for what you never used.
Timshel 4y ago
The title is quite different from the content of the video. His goal is to fund a lawyer to look into the issue. And looks to me he would just like screwing with John Deere.
- PartiallyTyped 4y ago
  Louis Rossmann? The Louis Rossmann who has been pushing for Right to Repair? The Louis who has been advocating for R2R in electronics, auto, and agriculture sectors, who has been a PITA to politicians for a decade or so now and has most likely never missed a hearing regarding R2R? That Louis Rossmann would want to mess with John Deere? He would never!
- heywhatupboys 4y ago
  From the register "Gingerich told us that the most widely-deployed GPL-covered software in Deere machinery is Linux. "As with most Linux distributions, it uses several other programs under copyleft (i.e. right to repair) licenses as well," he said." definitely just trolling
dkjaudyeqooe 4y ago
> You can not be forced to give out code. You can be forced to do whatever you agreed to do in a binding contract, if the action or contract isn't illegal. You don't present any basis for your claim. A court case like this could settle the matter. Since the GPL requires the derivative source to be released, anyone has standing to sue since anyone can request that code.
- jeroenhd 4y ago
  I'm not so sure about that. The GPL does spell out the rights for end users pretty clearly, but the terms being violated apply between the copyright holder and the company violating the terms. Violating "you can use this code with these conditions" means you can't use the code (and may need to pay damages to the people you've stolen the code from), not that you're necessarily forced to apply those conditions. IANAL but I think you need to the a copyright holder to effectively enforce these terms through the court. If you violate a contract with your employer and don't deliver a product in time, I don't think the customers can sue you. Instead, as far as I know, the customers will sue the company and the company will sue you to cover the costs.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  > Since the GPL requires the derivative source to be released, anyone has standing to sue since anyone can request that code. This is definitely wrong. If they refuse to provide source code, they are not abiding by the terms of the license, and thus presumably have no right to distribute that code. However, unless you are a copyright holder of the code they are distributing, there is no harm to you as a third party if the distributor is not respecting the terms of the license of the creator. At best, if they lose a lawsuit with the copyright holder and are forced to stop distributing the software and/or recall already distributed versions, you could then sue them for damages caused by their irresponsible behavior.
  - teddyh 4y ago
    > If they refuse to provide source code, they are not abiding by the terms of the license This is at best a simplification. The most common case is that a company has two options: Either provide the source code alongside every copy of the program, so that every recipient of the program has the source code already, or, alongside the program, provide a written offer, valid for three years, to provide source code on request. This offer, while required if the company chooses this option, is not part of the license! If a company does not provide source code on request, they have broken the promise provided by the offer, not the license, and can be sued for simply failing to uphold their promise. It then does not matter what the original licence says, or who the copyright holders are. And, of course, if a company provides neither the source code, nor such an offer of source code, they have already broken the license, and can be sued immediately; there is no need for anyone to request the source code. Doing so is just something many people do as an act of pure courtesy.
FpUser 4y ago
>"He can't since he is not the copyright owner of the GPL software." I am pretty sure he can convince copyright owner go give him power of attorney for specific case.
tjpnz 4y ago
If he's a user he can request the source code which they'll be required to provide per the terms of the GPL. The litigation kicks in if they don't comply. Whether Rossmann is the copyright owner or not is a minor point given he could throw his money and expertise behind whoever is.
detourdog 4y ago
He may not have standing due to not owning a tractor also.
- pabs3 4y ago
  He can fund those who do though.
  - detourdog 4y ago
    Those with standing can do it on their own. In fact they seem to be the ones that have gotten it this far in the courts on their own.
    - pabs3 4y ago
      Legal costs are high, I expect they would welcome any funding they can get, both small donations from individual contributors and larger grants from Rossman and others. I definitely know that Conservancy would welcome funding. https://sfconservancy.org/donate/ https://sfconservancy.org/donate/
boomboomsubban 4y ago
>He can't since he is not the copyright owner of the GPL software. There is an ongoing case trying to establish the users right to sue over noncompliance of the GPL, see https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html, but you're right that currently only the copyright holder can sue. edit "can" is the wrong word, "have successfully sued." That said, there's thousands of copyright holders for Linux, if Rossman isn't one he can probably find one easily.

dkjaudyeqooe 4y ago

It would be useful to have a court case be litigated all the way to the Supreme Court to establish the enforceability of the GPL whereby the defendant is forced to share code against their will.

hansjorg 4y ago
The current supreme court is very unlikely to rule for an individual against a large company. https://www.axios.com/2022/08/04/supreme-court-john-roberts-business https://www.axios.com/2022/08/04/supreme-court-john-roberts-...
- bee_rider 4y ago
  I wonder if the fact that lost of companies would like to stick lots of weird rules in their licenses could help here. Where’s John Deere in the pantheon of companies? They can’t be more powerful than the Googles and Faces Book of the world, right?
  - boomboomsubban 4y ago
    John Deere is the 84th largest company on the Fortune 500. It may be below Google or Facebook, but it's still a major player.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  I think they have confuse pro-government with pro-business. The Supreme court since FDR has been very resistant to role back the role of federal government, they have no problems smacking down state laws, but when it comes to rolling back federal laws or regulations well.... So here it would be determinative on which "side" the federal government chooses, or if the federal government stays silent which silence IMO is probably the most likely outcome for the federal government. If they stay out of the fight, I think Deere Loses. If the federal government defends Deere then I think it is more 50/50
lakecresva 4y ago
> whereby the defendant is forced to share code against their will. This remedy of compelling a party to do something they agreed to do is called 'specific performance', and US courts only even consider doing this when real property (land) is involved. For copyright infringement, generally what's available is injunctive relief preventing further infringement, disgorgement of profits, and statutory damages and attorneys fees as permitted by title 17. The injunction and disgorgement are the killers here that actually scare would-be infringers, and they mean that in most cases what you actually end up with is a settlement.

azubinski 4y ago

But why didn't he sue Xiaomi? Why? Life is pain and unanswered questions...

rurban 4y ago

A video? This is the better link https://www.theregister.com/2023/03/17/john_deere_sfc_gpl/ https://www.theregister.com/2023/03/17/john_deere_sfc_gpl/

isodev 4y ago
Thank you!
heywhatupboys 4y ago
> Gingerich told us that the most widely-deployed GPL-covered software in Deere machinery is Linux. "As with most Linux distributions, it uses several other programs under copyleft (i.e. right to repair) licenses as well," he said. what?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
  I see it as very hypocritical - Yeah we are ignoring licenses of others, but I dare you to install into "your" tractor a part which is not DRM signed by John Deere.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ryukafalz 4y ago
  Somewhat confused reporting, but it sounds like Gingerich was probably referring to "Linux" colloquially, as in a Linux distribution. That would in most cases include other GPL software such as GNU coreutils, or possibly BusyBox. (And then The Register quoted that as Linux itself including other GPL'd programs, which isn't quite right.)
  - mattl 4y ago
    Meanwhile https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/mar/16/john-deere-gpl-violations/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/mar/16/john-deere-gpl-vi... doesn't mention Linux.

jeroenhd 4y ago

What I don't understand is why John Deer with their incredibly expensive tractors doesn't just use Windows CE or any other proprietary OS. They can afford it and it's not like Linux development is any easier than Windows development. Offtopic: is it true what he says about Apple pairing their sleep sensor chip to their security signatures? That would be such a scumbag move.

klysm 4y ago
I find Linux development significantly easier due to experience and I think that feeling could be shared by a lot of folks. There’s also value in working with open tools because you can take that knowledge and use it anywhere. If you become knowledgeable in enterprisey stuff you can get stuck doing enterprisey things
- daemin 4y ago
  You're saying the same thing but with two different outcomes, as if by virtue of using open source tools you're not going to get stuck working at companies that also only use open source tools. Become experienced in open source tools so that you can work in companies that use open source tools. Become experienced in closed source tools so that you can work in companies that use closed source tools. It's the same thing so really it comes down to a matter of preference and experience. I am pretty much a Windows developer as that's generally been what I've done, and have very little experience writing code for Linux and other operating systems. I could do it in a pinch, and with some time I could adapt and become a more open source based developer, but that is not the environment where I am most productive.
  - klysm 4y ago
    Companies that used closed source tools can also use open source tools and more importantly _any_ company can use open source tools while the same is not true of closed source tools. I don't think it's really symmetric like you say it is. I do agree it's up to preference and experience though at the end of the day. Having experience in closed source tools can be very valuable because the cost of that knowledge is higher. Not everybody can just tinker with it.

Waterluvian 4y ago

He has standing to bring a suit?

pabs3 4y ago
He'll probably just fund those who do, he alludes to that in the video, says he has money in an account.

user3939382 4y ago

Reminder that John Deere is going around the country at the state level sabotaging right to repair bills while this is happening. This company is openly hostile to the public and needs to be reined* in.

sclarisse 4y ago
* reined, like a horse
- sophacles 4y ago
  Do you think horses really want to be associated with a company that helped take away thier jobs?
  - cmcconomy 4y ago
    I think this probably keeps the average horse up at night
  - bch 4y ago
    Neigh impossible to find, I’m sure.

funstuff007 4y ago

This is beyond crazy. I can't image even trying to be a farmer without spending a good portion of my time repairing my tools, fences, etc.

qwertox 4y ago

From the referenced video "CT Wilson: the delegate blocking Right to Repair in Maryland" [0]: "You don't need the source code, to change your battery, ...". I'm somehow confronted with this with my VW car. The battery is close to dead, and I want to replace it. I can do that. Yet the car needs to be informed that it now has a new battery in order optimize its power management (it's not an electric car, it's basically the most simple modern VW). I need to go to the dealer and have them change the battery for me and reset the battery status, which is maybe 100€ in addition to the battery cost. If the source code would be publicly accessible, probably a cheap OBD-2 adapter would be capable of doing this. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej1MmjCPYqU&t=197s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej1MmjCPYqU&t=197s

the_pwner224 4y ago
For that specific issue, you don't need the source code, you need the dealer diagnostic/programming toolkit. Hyundai GDS, BMW ISTA, each manufacturer has their own but I believe they're mostly reskinned and customized 3rd party products (I think Mazda & Ford have a shared toolkit). These give you everything from the service manual (detailed info on how to do any repair operation, with steps and photos), diagnostic code scanning and guided troubleshooters, and access to the car's electronics for putting ECUs into service mode (like the electronic parking brake) or reprogramming them with updated firmware (which is complicated and you probably don't need to do it). The service steps will interface with the car's ECUs - if you need to change the transmission fluid, the software will prepare the transmission, help you get it up to temperature and maintain that temperature, and then reset the calibration of the transmission at the end. And it'll show the technician each mechanical step they have to do along the way. Very advanced stuff. You can generally get this software a normal person, but it's a expensive subscription: https://hyundaitechinfo.com/ https://hyundaitechinfo.com/ https://bmwtechinfo.bmwgroup.com/ https://bmwtechinfo.bmwgroup.com/ You can usually find cracked versions online, but recently they've been getting more and more locked down. As for your battery replacement thing, there are 3rd party phone apps which can do it. You'll just need a compatible OBD adapter. I don't know what it is for VW, but for BMW BimmerLink gives you diagnostic info and lets you reset the battery, and BimmerCode lets you change some config options in the car ECUs to enable some useful small QoL features. I'm sure there is similar software for VAG cars.

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

Software licenses and closed-source software are at odds here. In the FOSS community it is easy to tell who borrowed your code and violated your license. Closed source software can choose to rip off everyone and it gets very difficult to enforce your open source license. Almost a rules for thee but not for me scenario that puts open source at a disadvantage.

quietbritishjim 4y ago

I don't understand what's going on here. The SFC blog post doesn't mention any specific program but, in the article in The Register, the SFC director is quoted talking about Linux in particular. But Linux is just GPLv2, so doesn't have an anti-Tivoisation [1] clause. In other words, you're free to put it on hardware in binary form (even after modifying it) and sell that hardware, and you're under no obligation to give away the source code to it or any of your own software. On the other hand, I'm sure the director of the SFC knows a lot more about this situation than I do, so I'm sure that there's something I'm missing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization

pabs3 4y ago
That is a misconception, the GPLv2 also provides users the right to modify, rebuild and reinstall software on their devices. https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-the-gpl-right-to-install/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t... However, with both GPLv2 and GPLv3, a vendor of an aggregation of copyleft and proprietary software can legally cause the the proprietary software to stop working when the copyleft software is modified. I think this hasn't been tested in court though, but the license as they are written both allow this. This would essentially brick your car/tractor until you rewrote that proprietary software from scratch. https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Safely-Copylefted-Cars-Reexamining-GPLv3-Installation-Information-Requirements-ALS-Bradley-Kuhn-Behan-Webster-1.pdf https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017...
- quietbritishjim 4y ago
  You're right, I had misunderstood. Thanks for those very interesting links.

naikrovek 4y ago

> "When Deere does reply (we have heard from others that their legitimate requests for source code have been met with silence), they have always failed to include the 'scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable,' per GPLv2," Gingerich told The Register. source code modifications are required to be provided, build tools which are not modified from GPL source are not. is this really what someone is going to sue over?