
BMW and the GPL - edent
https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2016/03/bmw-and-the-gpl/
======
jordigh
As far as I know, the original suggestion that there was a possible GPL
problem was raised by Duncan Bayne on Lobsters. After his story got attention,
BMW got back to him.[1]

Without making a big show of this, it would have been much more difficult to
get BMW's attention. Duncan tried to contact legal but was refused.

The point of GPL compliance isn't to sue or to shame, but just that: to bring
people to compliance. Even in the beginning of the GPL rms said to Eben, "I
have a rule. You must never let a request for damages interfere with a
settlement for compliance."[2] Legal action is an absolute last resort,
usually when years of friendly negotiations fail. All GPL lawsuits I know of
only took place after _years_ of attempts to get compliance failed. Duncan
just wanted compliance, not legal action.

\---

[1]
[https://lobste.rs/s/uaa4db/bmw_refuses_to_abide_by_terms_of_...](https://lobste.rs/s/uaa4db/bmw_refuses_to_abide_by_terms_of_gnu_public_license/comments/hxkrtn#c_hxkrtn)

[2] [http://www.geof.net/research/2006/moglen-
notes](http://www.geof.net/research/2006/moglen-notes)

~~~
FireBeyond
"Duncan tried to contact legal but was refused."

That's a little bit of a stretch of the scenario.

If I want to contact the Legal department of a multinational firm on a -legal
matter- related to contract law and software licensing, I (or my lawyers) send
a -letter- or at least email to the legal department.

I -don't- call Tier 1 Customer Tech Support for the vehicle, demand to be put
through to legal, run off to the web and talk about how BMW stonewalled me.

~~~
paulddraper
I can almost never find that info.

~~~
FireBeyond
Without sounding snarky, I searched "BMW Australia Head Office" and got the
address, pretty quickly. Alternatively, the Contact page of their website had
a section for "corporate" matters.

------
nailer
> Here's the thing - contacting customer services like that was entirely the
> wrong approach. Customer services aren't trained for the 0.001% of people
> who might be interested in an esoteric matter of legal licensing. Crying
> foul because a minimum wage rep didn't understand an obscure technical
> reference is counter productive.

Damn straight. So provided opensource@bmw.com actually respond this should be
sorted out: kudos for the author for being forthright about how this could
have been handled better.

~~~
cJ0th
Or just push it on git hub once and be done with it for good.

------
hannob
> Customer services aren't trained for the 0.001% of people who might be
> interested in an esoteric matter of legal licensing.

Here's where I'd like to disagree. Of course customer service doesn't have to
know about those esoteric issues. But customer service should notice when a
request comes that's not their department. And if that's the case they should
redirect it to someone who knows better.

This is not the personal fault of the person sitting at the customer service,
but the structure in a company. They should be able to handle that.

~~~
coldpie
I think you're underestimating the volume of stupid-and-crazy shit that CS
reps have to deal with every day. Sorting out stupid-and-crazy from
legitimate-but-not-my-department would be several full time jobs in itself.

~~~
jrcii
You've touched on a larger issue that occurs to me often. Though your point is
valid, my response to a company making the argument would be, "too bad."
/They're/ the ones making billions in revenue by voluntarily accepting a
business relationship with millions of customers. If you want the revenue from
those millions of relationships, it's also your responsibility to manage your
side of the bargain with those millions of relationships, that includes your
legal (and many other) responsibilities. Is scaling to keep up with your
responsibilities to millions of customers easy? No. However that's not the
customer's problem.

~~~
tobltobs
It would not be in the interest of 99.9% of your customer if you try to to
satisfy those 0.1% of stupid-and-crazy customers. Because somebody would have
to pay for it. And in this case it wasn't even a customer.

------
rubinlinux
Whisper systems releases source code. BMW runs whisper systems OS. Where is
the rub!?

------
merb
Besides all of that: As already said BMW only needs to give you the source
code if you are a car owner. If the car owner then puts the source code online
it's fine.

~~~
DannyBee
This is not right. If they put it online and point you at it, at the time they
ship, that's fine. Otherwise, it's going to be looked at as a written offer.
In this case, it's a 100% clear written offer.

Written offers must be valid to all third parties.

[http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-
faq.en.html#WhatDoesWrittenO...](http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-
faq.en.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid)

~~~
mugsie
> This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can
> still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer.

So you still need to be in possession of the binaries. it is not any 3rd
party, it is any third party who has possession of the binaries.

~~~
DannyBee
No. I understand why you may think it can be read that way. But i assure you
it means "that means people who did not get binaries can still receive copies
of the source code".

Please read the GPL compliance guides as well, which cover this in some detail
(i quoted it for you in the other comment).

What you write would be correct for GPLv3, which uses the phrase, "accompanied
by a written offer ... to give anyone who possesses the object code "

This was specifically changed in the third discussion draft of GPLv3 (see
[http://gplv3.fsf.org/gpl3-dd3-rationale.pdf](http://gplv3.fsf.org/gpl3-dd3-rationale.pdf))
In any case, i assure you: if you try to restrict it to people who have
binaries, various parties will take you to court for non-compliance :)

------
mankash666
Lesson learned - don't touch GPLed software even with a long stick. Time to
make FreeBSD gain mindshare instead of accepting GPLed linux which does the
same thing!

