
BMW refusing to abide by terms of GNU Public License - duncan_bayne
https://twitter.com/duncan_bayne/status/705244093702471680
======
Matthias247
I think you simply hit someone from [oversea] sales / customer relations who
has no idea about licenses or probably software at all and thinks he does the
right thing. I'm pretty sure there is someone at BMW who knows about it (the
industry is aware of licensing issues in general) and that there should also
be a process installed through which they can fulfill the license
requirements. Usually this involves that the actual device manufacturer /
software supplier is tasked with providing all the necessary information.

Getting the correct contact in large corporations is usually a nightmare -
especially for individuals. Some companies in the industry have information
about licenses or about ways to retrieve the necessary information on their
websites, but I don't know about BMW.

Of course that shouldn't be an excuse and they clearly acted wrong on your
request.

If you are more interested on the technical side and less on the legal side of
the request then I think you won't miss much anyway. All of the GPLed software
components will be used as much unmodified as possible (will probably be the
Kernel, glibc and some open source daemons). And the actual car related parts
will not be linked to them and stay closed source.

------
duncan_bayne
Sorry, I really should have included the text of BMW's refusal. It's here:

[https://gist.github.com/duncan-
bayne/fc3213d4a0eabb70bb1e](https://gist.github.com/duncan-
bayne/fc3213d4a0eabb70bb1e)

I've also replied to my own tweets with that link. Apologies for the
communication fail on my part, and thanks to HN mods for resurrecting this
submission.

------
dublinben
Actual article: [https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2016/02/bmw-are-sending-their-
softw...](https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2016/02/bmw-are-sending-their-software-
updates-unencrypted/)

~~~
daurnimator
the article is just about finding GPL licensed software. not about their
refusal.

~~~
duncan_bayne
Yes - I'm sorry for not linking the full text of the refusal that I received
after contacting BMW about the software mentioned in the article.

The full refusal is here: [https://gist.github.com/duncan-
bayne/fc3213d4a0eabb70bb1e](https://gist.github.com/duncan-
bayne/fc3213d4a0eabb70bb1e)

~~~
rakoo
The meaty part:

> I have confirmed with our technical department who advised that to access
> the software download site the BMW Customer must provide the 7 digit VIN and
> accept the usage rights agreement. Part of the usage rights agreement states
> that the software is protected by copyright and BMW is the sole owner. So in
> this case it is not subject to the requirements of a "Public" licence.

Which means that a user must prove they really are a user by inputting the
digit code before getting to the code. Which is in line with the GPL.

There is a 2nd, more real problem though: "the software is protected by
copyright and BMW is the sole owner". This is wrong, this is where BMW makes
fraudulent claims. From the license text:

> You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as
> you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and
> appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice [and
> disclaimer of warranty]

------
duncan_bayne
An update on this: a BMW staff member has emailed me to say that BMW
understands Copyleft, and that he's looking into the matter. I've put him in
touch the with the chap who made the initial discovery, and the Free Software
Conservancy. Hopefully they'll sort it out between them.

------
EwanToo
No offence, but a link to your own tweet, not something in writing from BMW is
hardly worth discussing?

~~~
duncan_bayne
My bad. Link posted, sorry for the very poor communication.

------
Joof
Where do they refuse? It seems at best they are just getting called out on it.
Time to lawyer up.

~~~
duncan_bayne
Called out and then they refused. I called the Melbourne head office, and they
verbally refused, and at my request put the refusal in writing:
[https://gist.github.com/duncan-
bayne/fc3213d4a0eabb70bb1e](https://gist.github.com/duncan-
bayne/fc3213d4a0eabb70bb1e)

Really not cool. I'd expected cluelessness (like Telstra with the T-Box) not
arrogant refusal.

