
Let's discuss the source for the GPLed parts of Tesla cars - warp
https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2019/oct/30/calling-all-tesla-owners/
======
weinzierl
Some time ago there was a story about how BMW sent a DVD to a guy who asked
for the GPL software in his i3 (BMW's electric car)[1]. It was also discussed
on HN [2].

[1] [https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2016/03/bmw-are-complying-with-
the-...](https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2016/03/bmw-are-complying-with-the-gpl/)

[2]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11384968](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11384968)

~~~
ossguy
It looks like BMW is not in compliance. As far as I can tell, no one has done
a complete corresponding source (CCS) check on that code like we did for
Tesla: [https://lists.sfconservancy.org/pipermail/ccs-
review/2018-Ma...](https://lists.sfconservancy.org/pipermail/ccs-
review/2018-May/000000.html)

A brief look at the code BMW provided suggests they haven't provided any
information on how to build or install the code, both of which are required by
the GPL.

If you do find or receive source code from other car manufacturers, please try
to build it before concluding that they are compliant. If you have trouble,
please report this issue to us at [https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-
compliance/#reporting](https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-
compliance/#reporting) and we'll do our best to help.

------
esotericn
Chucked over an email.

Not sure if this is specifically relevant, but just in case, I have a (minor)
commit in BusyBox which is licensed under GPLv2.

I'd love to have Tesla send me my source. ;)

~~~
ones_and_zeros
Maybe a silly question, but if I run a for profit SaaS and I package my
software with my business logic up in a linux container which uses alpine as a
base (which uses busybox), am I required to release the code for my business?

~~~
cfallin
That's the difference between GPL and AGPL. GPL only requires source
distribution if you distribute binaries, not if you run your binaries on your
own server responding to requests from users. AGPL requires source
distribution for any network-accessible service.

(Unsurprisingly, there was a very very strict rule against using, coming
within 100 meters of, looking funnily at, or even thinking in a passing way of
any AGPL source internally when I was at a particular large internet company
that was otherwise pretty open-source-friendly...)

~~~
millstone
The AGPL requires you to provide source to "all users interacting with it
remotely through a computer network."

If I have a factory, and my line workers use terminals that talks to my
central server, do I have to provide them with a copy of my source code?

If I own a store that has price scanners that check a central database, do I
have to make source code available to all customers?

If I have an airline that contains in-flight entertainment units, do I have to
provide source code to every passenger?

~~~
belorn
> If I have a factory, and my line workers use terminals that talks to my
> central server, do I have to provide them with a copy of my source code?

No, and the FAQ for AGPL
([http://www.affero.org/oagf.html](http://www.affero.org/oagf.html)) explains
that AGPL and GPL works identical in this matter. Organization that just makes
the copies for itself is not distributing, and as such not bound by the
conditions for distributing ([https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-
faq.en.html#InternalDistrib...](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-
faq.en.html#InternalDistribution)).

> If I own a store that has price scanners that check a central database

> If I have an airline that contains in-flight entertainment units

Grey zones. It depend on copyright law. All interaction with copyrighted
material is not distribution. I can look at a building without the architect
being owned money. I should be able to sleep in a hotel without the architect
having a copyright claim. Can I take a photo? That is debated. Can I buy and
sell the building? maybe.

I would personally think that a price scanner is not conveying the work of
internal workings of the store, but a agpl game in an in-flight entertainment
units is conveying copies of the art to passengers just like a movie.

Ask a lawyer and the answer should be "it depend", just like any other legal
area which does not have clear bright lines.

------
sys_64738
Has anybody emailed Musk directly about this? As somebody who made his money
on the back of the tech industry he should get the need to give back.

~~~
geofft
??? Most people who make money on the back of X do not feel the need to give
back, and most people who diligently give back do not make Musk levels of
money, no?

------
_Microft
Honest question: if someone modifies the software of their car, will it still
be street-legal?

~~~
megous
Why not? What's wrong with modifying your infotainment system for example?

People can put random android radios into their cars, and nobody cares. And
code quality will probably be quite atrocious.

~~~
twblalock
> Why not? What's wrong with modifying your infotainment system for example?

A lot of infotainment systems lock out some features when the car is moving.
For example, watching a DVD on the dashboard screen of a moving car is not
normally possible. People share workarounds for that kind of thing on car
enthusiast forums.

If someone removed restrictions from their infotainment system, and they were
involved in an accident while using that system, it might come up if the
matter went to court.

~~~
JohnFen
It might, yes, but that doesn't mean that making that modification is illegal
(it's not).

It could be brought up in court as piece of a larger effort to show negligence
or actual lawbreaking.

For instance, in my state it's entirely legal to have a video system that is
capable of showing video that is visible to the driver, but it's entirely
illegal to use that system in a way that makes the video visible to the
driver. So while having the system installed is legal, it could also be a
piece of a larger collection of evidence showing wrongdoing.

~~~
dragonwriter
> It might, yes, but that doesn't mean that making that modification is
> illegal (it's not).

 _Using_ the modified device where the public vehicle code applies might be,
even if making the modification, alone, is not strictly illegal. (For instance
use of the device so modified would be illegal on a public road in California,
where it would violate the screen use law, which only allows screen use if it
has a lockout of all but specified allowed functions while the vehicle is
moving. Note that under the text, even if only the functions permitted while a
vehicle is in operation are actually _used_ , it would still violate the law
to use the device if the lockout was disabled so that it was _possible_ to use
other functions.) Cal. Vehicle Code § 27602.

------
arshbot
Unfortunately, this is par for the course for any large public "tech" company.
Releasing their source proactively isn't a source of profit so it is simply
not done until people have to beg for it.

------
wil421
When will you be able to hack your car to get better performance? EVs kinda
take the hotrodding fun out of cars. Being able to play with the software
would bring a part of it back.

~~~
RcouF1uZ4gsC
With EV’s you can also light your battery on fire with incorrect software
mods.

~~~
newnewpdro
As a former gearhead I can say with authority that fires are not a new hazard
for the hot-rodding community.

I do think the electrocution risk is significantly higher though.

Spilling gasoline on your hands and clothes while sloppily pulling off a fuel
rail or fuel pump was benign. Spilling electricity all over you while sloppily
removing and handling a large cumbersome massive battery pack with whatever
improvised tools you had on hand sounds like an easy way to be killed.

~~~
uxp100
I mean, maybe. I've seen accidents fiddling with conversion EVs 15 years ago,
and you could say the same thing. Drop a wrench onto a battery pack and you no
longer own a wrench, but bare skin contact with a few hundred volt pack isn't
instant death.

I wonder if oily rags are more dangerous than both.

~~~
newnewpdro
> I wonder if oily rags are more dangerous than both.

Maybe if your vehicle uses Linseed oil...

------
alexis_fr
GPL is transitive, so does that mean all software in the Tesla becomes GPL? If
not, please explain. GPL has no linkage/classpath exception.

~~~
singron
Software that isn't linked with GPL sources probably isn't GPL. If it's just
the linux kernel and busybox, then probably all the interesting userspace
software isn't GPL since it wouldn't be linked.

------
ex3ndr
Just curious what prohibits Tesla to stop shipping updates for owners who will
demand sources?

~~~
Miner49er
A judge can order Tesla to stop distributing GPL'ed code. Which means they
couldn't sell Teslas with it or ship firmware updates to anyone with it.

Source: [https://lwn.net/Articles/61292/](https://lwn.net/Articles/61292/)

Relevant part:

> You do have a choice under the GPL: you can stop using the stolen code and
> write your own, or you can decide you'd rather release under the GPL. But
> the choice is yours. If you say "I choose neither," the court can impose an
> injunction to stop you from further distribution, but it won't order your
> code released under the GPL. Your code remains yours, as you can see, even
> in a worst case scenario.

Well really the whole article is relevant. It points out that the GPL is a
license to use the GPL'ed code. If Tesla violates the conditions of that
license, they can lose the right to use that code as a result. IANAL though.

~~~
sbx320
I think the question is rather if Tesla is allowed to provide source for
current version you have (therefore complying with the GPL), but also refuse
to ship any further updates to you as well.

As you'd no longer receive the new binaries, you'd also no longer be entitled
to the new sources per the GPL. This would leave Tesla with a large deterrent
against people asking for sources.

~~~
heisenzombie
My guess is that imposing a punishment for exercising your right to the source
code wouldn't hold up:

"You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights
granted or affirmed under this License."

Also, once any person has the source code they explicitly have the right to
distribute it. So even if the punishment was imposed, it would only apply to
the first person (who could then e.g. upload it to GitHub for everyone else).
Maybe someone with a written-off Tesla would do that?

~~~
xeromal
It's not really punishment. You're not guaranteed updates when you buy the
car.

~~~
crooked-v
"You'll get X in future updates" is usually a prominent part of Tesla's
marketing.

------
kevin_thibedeau
Even with source how does one relink their GPL'ed code and replace the Tesla
binaries?

~~~
esotericn
Does the car have any GPLv3 software or only GPLv2? The article mentions
busybox and linux which are both GPLv2 only.

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
So. GPL2 requires that you can replace the open source portions with your own
changes.

~~~
snagglegaggle
Really? The GPLv3 was released in response to TiVoization.

------
Google234
This is why the GPL is toxic. If you include it your software someone can
request your source code and then compile it and release it for free.

~~~
yarrel
They can only request the source code if you give them the binary.

So sell them the binary and relax.

~~~
xeromal
Does that mean if Tesla charged $1 for the software on their cars, they
wouldn't need to give their source code?

~~~
esotericn
They need to give the source code to the recipients of the binaries who are
then free to release the source code (or not) as they see fit.

~~~
xeromal
Thanks for the clarification

------
drewg123
This will probably get downvoted, but this kind of thing is why companies
avoid the GPL. There will be people inside the company saying they would not
be having these issues if they'd have used a BSD based OS (like Sony, Apple,
etc) or a completely closed source OS.

~~~
LeoPanthera
Are you really sympathizing with companies on this one? It's not like how the
GPL works is a mystery. If you use the code, you release the source. It's not
fucking rocket science.

And even if it was, Elon's companies have some experience with rocket science.

~~~
odshoifsdhfs
I really think you win the internet for the day with that last phrase :)

