
Tesla starts to release its cars' code - _emacsomancer_
https://www.zdnet.com/article/tesla-starts-to-release-its-cars-open-source-linux-software-code/
======
saghm
Is it just me, or is the phrase "starting to release open source software" a
bit confusing? If it's not released, how is it open source?

~~~
seba_dos1
It was a GPL violation.

------
thosakwe
Isn’t this a requirement of the GPL license? Or am I mistaken?

~~~
mehrdadn
If my memory serves correctly [1] releasing the source proactively is not a
requirement; the requirement is that the source be made available upon
request. So presumably they wouldn't have to do this until someone demanded
it.

[1] I'm not entirely sure which clause I picked this up from (it's been a few
years), but this clause I can right now seems to say the same thing: _Our
General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that [...] you receive
source code or can get it if you want it [...]_

~~~
mikekchar
You are correct. Also, it's only a requirement to give the source code to
someone you have given the binary to. It's not the case that someone can say
"Oh you used GPL code in your software, you have to give me the source code".
In fact, not even the author of the original source code can demand the
changes unless they also received a binary from downstream.

~~~
mehrdadn
Right. Do you know if it counts as giving someone the binary if you give them
a car that has the binary loaded?

~~~
sametmax
Yes.

~~~
mikekchar
Brevity is a virtue, but I just want to expand slightly: if you have paid for
the car, then you have paid for he source code. That's what the license says.
It is your legal right. There is a lot of talk about copyleft, but it is at
its simplest a consumer rights issue. Not everybody is entitled to that source
code, but if you've bought it, then you are.

