5 ms·

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, i

by 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."
    - tellarin 14y ago
      GPLv2 makes no such distinction or limitation in section 3. I states that distribution of binaries must include either: a) Complete corresponding machine-readable source code; or b) Written offer to give any third party a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code; Item c) applies only to non-commercial cases, which is not the case here. So if they are not doing a), they need to do b). And written does not imply regular mail (which you mentioned in your other reply), it can be anything on their web page or an e-mail. If every distributed copy includes full source, then that's covered. Otherwise any request must be fulfilled, as there should be a written notice offering it somewhere. There is no limitation to who can request it. GPLv3 on the other hand is more "legalese" and harder to read. Section 6 mentions possession of object code only for item b), which is the case for "written notice". So it will only apply if there is such written notice upon distribution. Item c) is only for non-commercial cases. Items d) and e) require making source electronically available. Item a) says that if it is a physical product it needs to include full sources in some media. If the distributor doesn't do d) or e), they need to do a) or b). So, nowhere it is "patently false". Only if using GPLv3, and the binaries being provided along with a physical product, then there is no obligation to provide the code to any request. The "corner case" I mentioned in my comment is related to item a). The limitation on item b) is actually something I had never noticed before. But I have no idea which license version Tesla uses, so I don't know if this applies. PS: Just to clarify one thing: trying to download a file from a URL or via P2P also constitutes a request. It's just on another media.
      - 14y ago

by Niten 14y ago

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."
  - tellarin 14y ago
    GPLv2 makes no such distinction or limitation in section 3. I states that distribution of binaries must include either: a) Complete corresponding machine-readable source code; or b) Written offer to give any third party a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code; Item c) applies only to non-commercial cases, which is not the case here. So if they are not doing a), they need to do b). And written does not imply regular mail (which you mentioned in your other reply), it can be anything on their web page or an e-mail. If every distributed copy includes full source, then that's covered. Otherwise any request must be fulfilled, as there should be a written notice offering it somewhere. There is no limitation to who can request it. GPLv3 on the other hand is more "legalese" and harder to read. Section 6 mentions possession of object code only for item b), which is the case for "written notice". So it will only apply if there is such written notice upon distribution. Item c) is only for non-commercial cases. Items d) and e) require making source electronically available. Item a) says that if it is a physical product it needs to include full sources in some media. If the distributor doesn't do d) or e), they need to do a) or b). So, nowhere it is "patently false". Only if using GPLv3, and the binaries being provided along with a physical product, then there is no obligation to provide the code to any request. The "corner case" I mentioned in my comment is related to item a). The limitation on item b) is actually something I had never noticed before. But I have no idea which license version Tesla uses, so I don't know if this applies. PS: Just to clarify one thing: trying to download a file from a URL or via P2P also constitutes a request. It's just on another media.
    - 14y ago