4 ms·

GPL compliance (sigh) and a new SDK for a vehicle aren't really the same topic. They just happen to have cars in common. If I left a comment about the camshaft

GPL compliance (sigh) and a new SDK for a vehicle aren't really the same topic. They just happen to have cars in common. If I left a comment about the camshaft on my Jeep, that wouldn't be on topic, even though it's about cars. That aside, what do you hope to gain from their GPL compliance? Pop open the GPL compliance kit from, say, a Netgear router and you get a kernel, a few drivers, and the toolchain used to build it. And BusyBox. How useful will the drivers for things in a Tesla be to you? Do you own a Tesla, or is it just curiosity? If it's curiosity, well, I wish we weren't enforcing that with the GPL.

Niten 14y ago
> If it's curiosity, well, I wish we weren't enforcing that with the GPL. It's simple, either you comply with the GPL or you don't distribute GPL-based code. As an author of GPL licensed software, I think it's pretty damned arrogant for someone like you to imply curiosity isn't a good enough reason to get back modifications in accordance with the chosen license. Who are you to judge? And anyway, what reason could possibly be more worthy than curiosity? It's the authors' choice, not the peanut gallery's; and if they hadn't intended for all distributed modifications to be made available under the GPL, they would have chosen BSD or another license instead. And if you don't like that, too bad.
- i386 14y ago
  Because "for curiosity" isn't a term stated in any GPL license. You can be offended as much as you want for them not releasing it but unless you own a Tesla they don't have to share their modifications with you. If you are unhappy with that, I suggest sharing your work under a different license.
  - Niten 14y ago
    I'm perfectly fine with that, but you seem confused about the argument here. GPL code distributors don't have the right to say curiosity, or any other reason, is invalid cause to enforce the GPL. And while I do not have standing to request GPL licensed code from Tesla, they have a legal obligation to either distribute that code directly, or a provide a transferable offer to distribute that code, to their customers. Code properly distributed as such inevitably would make it back out into the wider open source community; this is the design of the GPL. If Tesla currently does not meet this obligation under the GPL, that is a problem.
    - i386 14y ago
      Yes, they are legally obligated to share their modifications with their customers. No arguments here. > Code properly distributed as such inevitably would make it back out into the wider open source community; this is the design of the GPL The design of the GPL is to protect the users rights to use, access and modify the software in perpetuity. There is no provision in the license that modifiers have to share modified works with the author specifically - they just have to make it accessible to the people they are distributing it to. Being the author of a GPL work and wanting access to those changes because you are merely curious or want those changes to be merged into the original work, the unfortunate reality is that the GPL will do squat for you in that regard.
      - sokoloff 14y ago
        I think Niten's point is that some Tesla customer would request the GPL code and decide to make an open distribution of it, as would be their right (but not their obligation). It seems overwhelmingly likely to happen.
      - tellarin 14y ago
        > Yes, they are legally obligated to share their modifications with their customers. No arguments here. Nope, if you distribute something with GPL code, you must make the source available to anyone that requests it. Not only to your customers. And you can't put any kind of filter on reasons for the request. One can only charge a "reasonable" amount for the work of making it available (CD, hosting, etc). The only corner case I see is if they claim that they are selling a device (like the whole car) as a single package and there is only a single package of code along with it.
        callahad 14y ago
        > if you distribute something with GPL code, you must make the source available to anyone that requests it. Not only to your customers. And you can't put any kind of filter on reasons for the request. That's patently false for both the GPLv2 and GPLv3. For v2, see section 3. Only one of the three compliance options requires universal fulfillment of requests for source. GPLv3 has no similar requirement. The closest analogue to v2's section 3(b) has its scope explicitly limited to "anyone who possesses the object code."
drivebyacct2 14y ago
Why do you care? The GPL doesn't alleviate the obligations of its users based on what jspthrowaway2 finds to be a valuable pursuit. (Presuming the GP is a customer eligible to receive the modifications under the GPL terms)
g8oz 14y ago
Motivation is irrelevant. If you accept a license you comply with its terms period.
revelation 14y ago
I don't own a Tesla, so I don't have legal standing. But I care about the company, I want it to succeed. Heres the problem: they employ a dozen of people that know very well of the obligations under the GPL. They use GPLed software in core parts of their products. There are possibly thousands of copyright holders for the used GPL software. Taken together, thats a highly combustible mix.
lmm 14y ago
Allowing people to engage their curiosity is the #1 reason I release software under the GPL.

Niten 14y ago

> If it's curiosity, well, I wish we weren't enforcing that with the GPL. It's simple, either you comply with the GPL or you don't distribute GPL-based code. As an author of GPL licensed software, I think it's pretty damned arrogant for someone like you to imply curiosity isn't a good enough reason to get back modifications in accordance with the chosen license. Who are you to judge? And anyway, what reason could possibly be more worthy than curiosity? It's the authors' choice, not the peanut gallery's; and if they hadn't intended for all distributed modifications to be made available under the GPL, they would have chosen BSD or another license instead. And if you don't like that, too bad.

i386 14y ago
Because "for curiosity" isn't a term stated in any GPL license. You can be offended as much as you want for them not releasing it but unless you own a Tesla they don't have to share their modifications with you. If you are unhappy with that, I suggest sharing your work under a different license.
- Niten 14y ago
  I'm perfectly fine with that, but you seem confused about the argument here. GPL code distributors don't have the right to say curiosity, or any other reason, is invalid cause to enforce the GPL. And while I do not have standing to request GPL licensed code from Tesla, they have a legal obligation to either distribute that code directly, or a provide a transferable offer to distribute that code, to their customers. Code properly distributed as such inevitably would make it back out into the wider open source community; this is the design of the GPL. If Tesla currently does not meet this obligation under the GPL, that is a problem.
  - i386 14y ago
    Yes, they are legally obligated to share their modifications with their customers. No arguments here. > Code properly distributed as such inevitably would make it back out into the wider open source community; this is the design of the GPL The design of the GPL is to protect the users rights to use, access and modify the software in perpetuity. There is no provision in the license that modifiers have to share modified works with the author specifically - they just have to make it accessible to the people they are distributing it to. Being the author of a GPL work and wanting access to those changes because you are merely curious or want those changes to be merged into the original work, the unfortunate reality is that the GPL will do squat for you in that regard.
    - sokoloff 14y ago
      I think Niten's point is that some Tesla customer would request the GPL code and decide to make an open distribution of it, as would be their right (but not their obligation). It seems overwhelmingly likely to happen.
    - tellarin 14y ago
      > Yes, they are legally obligated to share their modifications with their customers. No arguments here. Nope, if you distribute something with GPL code, you must make the source available to anyone that requests it. Not only to your customers. And you can't put any kind of filter on reasons for the request. One can only charge a "reasonable" amount for the work of making it available (CD, hosting, etc). The only corner case I see is if they claim that they are selling a device (like the whole car) as a single package and there is only a single package of code along with it.
      - callahad 14y ago
        > if you distribute something with GPL code, you must make the source available to anyone that requests it. Not only to your customers. And you can't put any kind of filter on reasons for the request. That's patently false for both the GPLv2 and GPLv3. For v2, see section 3. Only one of the three compliance options requires universal fulfillment of requests for source. GPLv3 has no similar requirement. The closest analogue to v2's section 3(b) has its scope explicitly limited to "anyone who possesses the object code."

drivebyacct2 14y ago

Why do you care? The GPL doesn't alleviate the obligations of its users based on what jspthrowaway2 finds to be a valuable pursuit. (Presuming the GP is a customer eligible to receive the modifications under the GPL terms)

g8oz 14y ago

Motivation is irrelevant. If you accept a license you comply with its terms period.

revelation 14y ago

I don't own a Tesla, so I don't have legal standing. But I care about the company, I want it to succeed. Heres the problem: they employ a dozen of people that know very well of the obligations under the GPL. They use GPLed software in core parts of their products. There are possibly thousands of copyright holders for the used GPL software. Taken together, thats a highly combustible mix.

lmm 14y ago

Allowing people to engage their curiosity is the #1 reason I release software under the GPL.