Anyone want to get the source code for the Linux (etc.) in your car?

[FlasherZ]

Please read my post and the GPL again. If you distribute object code you are required to distribute an offer for the source code and/or the source code itself. The only way to avoid that requirement is to not distribute object code. It would be impractical for Tesla to be distributing only source code to the cars. For one thing for this to be the case you'd have to wait for the source to compile after delivery before the car would be drivable.

I read it. Your definition of "distribute" may not be the controlling legal definition. I know in the cases I've looked at, it's not as simple as you say it is.

CDW is required to do so if they sell such a server. They end up doing so by passing through the offer provided by HP as allowed by this clause in the GPL.

I'm pretty sure you just indicted an entire industry, and I'm wondering why every single systems integrator and distributor hasn't been sued into oblivion already under your interpretation, given the number of copyright holders in Linux. The last I looked, most systems distributors and integrators rely upon the /LICENSE file, unmodified, and don't take any specific action to amplify, repeat, or display it when they have used it without modification. If there's specific case law that requires them to, perhaps you can share the citation.

Actually no. This would be a civil case. Preponderance of the evidence would be the legal standard.

Indeed, but that's not what I said - perhaps re-read my post? I said that EVEN under preponderance of the evidence standard, that failure to prove Tesla's "distribution" (e.g., you did not account for the many ways that their arrangement with suppliers and technology providers would save them from action) and instead relying upon "well, they said Linux, therefore... GUILTY!" is a poor legal analysis. Works great for one's own point of view, but doesn't stand up under external scrutiny.

 

[breser]

I read it. Your definition of "distribute" may not be the controlling legal definition. I know in the cases I've looked at, it's not as simple as you say it is.

I didn't provide a definition of distribute. The important phrase is copy. The license says copy and distribute because they mean you made a copy and then gave it to someone else. The GPL says this because they don't need to worry about how many copies you make for yourself because they're not trying to limit this. So the term distribute in the GPL exists to reduce the production provided by copyright law, not expand it.

I'm pretty sure you just indicted an entire industry, and I'm wondering why every single systems integrator and distributor hasn't been sued into oblivion already under your interpretation, given the number of copyright holders in Linux. The last I looked, most systems distributors and integrators rely upon the /LICENSE file, unmodified, and don't take any specific action to amplify, repeat, or display it when they have used it without modification. If there's specific case law that requires them to, perhaps you can share the citation.

Let me be clear here. It really depends on what role you mean when you're referring to these other parties. The important bit is who's making the copy. If HP makes a copy and then CDW just ships that along then CDW isn't really responsible for complying with the license (yes I was less than clear about this earlier).

But I think this is a very poor example to compare to what Tesla is doing. I find it very hard to believe that Tesla is making no copies in the course of their business that end up in the hands of end users.

One point I'll make here is comparing a general purpose computer that includes documentation that is embedded and generally available to end users is far different than the case of Tesla. I'd consider Tesla's situation to be much closer to TiVo which has the following page:
TiVo | Legal Policies | Open Source

Which is linked to in their documentation and in their interface.

Indeed, but that's not what I said - perhaps re-read my post? I said that EVEN under preponderance of the evidence standard, that failure to prove Tesla's "distribution" (e.g., you did not account for the many ways that their arrangement with suppliers and technology providers would save them from action) and instead relying upon "well, they said Linux, therefore... GUILTY!" is a poor legal analysis. Works great for one's own point of view, but doesn't stand up under external scrutiny.

I don't believe the conditions that you're suggesting that would excuse Tesla of these license obligations are likely. Basically nVidia or some other vendor would be the one making copies for Tesla. Tesla would then be unable to provide updates to their existing user base, because I don't think you can make the argument that their update process is not making copies.

 

[bovine]

Not really. It is at least possible that Tesla has not modified any GPL code. They could possibly have simply written things to run as application software without modification to the actual OS and code for those applications are not required to be disclosed. There are also all sorts of arcane rules when the software is released on ROMs as well as number of open legal questions that have yet to be litigated.

Even if third-party GPL code is used in a product and not modified, that vendor needs to be prepared to re-distribute the original source code for those components upon request. If they made any changes to those GPL components, then those changes should also be included.

 

[lagann]

Let's just presume that Tesla is using the Linux kernel for the purposes of this post. I understand there is the question of proof there. But if you assume that Tesla is using the Linux kernel it is clear that they are violating the license.

Assembling their own components or using a distribution is irrelevant to the license clause. The important part is are they offering the source code to people they are distributing object code to. As an owner (and despite some effort looking for it) I have not found this offer. It is not in the car's manual. It is not on their website. It is not in the paper documentation that comes with the car.

Even if they are relying on a third party to provide the source code, they still have to provide that third parties source code offer. They don't.

Setting the bar of proof here (assuming you accept that Tesla is using the Linux kernel) as high as expecting Tesla to come out and admit they are violating the license is absurd. If Tesla is willfully refusing to comply with the license they aren't going to make such a comment. It's like saying that OJ can't have been guilty because he never sent a letter to the press admitting guilt. You're not going to find a smoking gun like this.

Now if you want to debate if Tesla is not using the Linux Kernel I'm all ears for that. But as far as I can tell there's been no evidence that they aren't and there's been plenty of public statements that suggest that they are.

Okay so here's the source code you wanted:

https://github.com/torvalds/linux

Tesla probably built any of their proprietary software components as separate modules separate from the OS with just the interface hooks in the OS . They are under no obligation to release their proprietary code separate from the OS. I feel bad for you as you seem passionate about your mission but you may be on a fool's errand where at the end you may get them to release more or less what is the public codebase for the OS and nothing more.

Could you please now stop distracting Tesla from building cars? Don't you have a kernel to build or something?

There are many cases in which Tesla would not be required, legally, to distribute a pointer to source code and/or the source code itself, and you've made my point for me. "No evidence they aren't using Linux and plenty of public statements that suggest they are" is insufficient legal basis to prove -- even with preponderance of the evidence standards -- that they are violating the GPL.

You are required to prove that they are "distributing" the code in the first place -- but if they are merely integrating a component from another vendor as-is, it may or may not be considered "distributing". If CDW sells you an HP server that has Linux installed, are they "distributing" Linux and are they therefore required to put the tarball up? The answer to that question is "no". There is an argument that it could be considered a derivative, but there is plenty of case law either way on that one. And that's just ONE case in which they wouldn't be required to do so. Your beef might be with their supplier.

Again, merely saying "no evidence they're not using Linux and plenty of statements that suggest that they are" is very flawed legal analysis.

Not really. It is at least possible that Tesla has not modified any GPL code. They could possibly have simply written things to run as application software without modification to the actual OS and code for those applications are not required to be disclosed. There are also all sorts of arcane rules when the software is released on ROMs as well as number of open legal questions that have yet to be litigated. It is quite likely that Tesla is required to disclose at least some code under the GPL, but just using a GPL OS is not enough to know that. It would be something that could quickly be determined using the rules of discovery should it come to litigation, however. I'm not excited to get into a protracted GPL debate unless I'm getting paid to participate, but it is a much more complicated and nuanced question than many here seem to think.

Even if they have extended the OS (which seems quite likely), those plug-ins are likely exempt from reporting if they aren't derivitive although the exact rules vary a bit between GPLv2 and GPLv3. (Lawrence Rosen on derivitive works)

unless you have proof that they modified GPL code I don't see this going anywhere.

I read it. Your definition of "distribute" may not be the controlling legal definition. I know in the cases I've looked at, it's not as simple as you say it is.



I'm pretty sure you just indicted an entire industry, and I'm wondering why every single systems integrator and distributor hasn't been sued into oblivion already under your interpretation, given the number of copyright holders in Linux. The last I looked, most systems distributors and integrators rely upon the /LICENSE file, unmodified, and don't take any specific action to amplify, repeat, or display it when they have used it without modification. If there's specific case law that requires them to, perhaps you can share the citation.



Indeed, but that's not what I said - perhaps re-read my post? I said that EVEN under preponderance of the evidence standard, that failure to prove Tesla's "distribution" (e.g., you did not account for the many ways that their arrangement with suppliers and technology providers would save them from action) and instead relying upon "well, they said Linux, therefore... GUILTY!" is a poor legal analysis. Works great for one's own point of view, but doesn't stand up under external scrutiny.

These are all wrong, 100%. Stop distracting Tesla? Seriously? Quit commenting on stuff you know NOTHING about. Also, stating that we shouldn't hold Tesla responsible for stealing other peoples work so as to not distract them is asinine. There is no question they are in violation. If they haven't modified any of it, then they MUST state WHICH version of the kernel is included, among other things, with EACH firmware release. All it comes down to is people stating dumb things like there's no proof that would hold up in court. That would require a firmware dump, which Tesla is protecting very closely. It's shady and wrong. There's no question about it. Anything you all are arguing do not apply and are ignorant at best. The kernel is on the car; there is enough proof for us to accuse them publicly on that. And seriously, don't come in here with your ridiculous notions that they shouldn't be held accountable because you want them to make more cars. That's an insult to every developer who has ever released any open source code. You can have your own personal opinion on how you think Tesla should be able to take other peoples code without following the license they attached to it and do whatever they want with it, but it has no bearing on the fact they are doing it and violating the GPL. Including it from another vendor, such as NVIDIA, also does not matter. They are still distributing it themselves whenever they deliver the car.

Seriously, stop. You're just making yourselves look like asshats.

 

[JimmyAZ]

Aaaand with that response I'm seriously bored with this thread.

 

[DrumCoder]

These are all wrong, 100%. Stop distracting Tesla? Seriously? Quit commenting on stuff you know NOTHING about. Also, stating that we shouldn't hold Tesla responsible for stealing other peoples work so as to not distract them is asinine. There is no question they are in violation. If they haven't modified any of it, then they MUST state WHICH version of the kernel is included, among other things, with EACH firmware release. All it comes down to is people stating dumb things like there's no proof that would hold up in court. That would require a firmware dump, which Tesla is protecting very closely. It's shady and wrong. There's no question about it. Anything you all are arguing do not apply and are ignorant at best. The kernel is on the car; there is enough proof for us to accuse them publicly on that. And seriously, don't come in here with your ridiculous notions that they shouldn't be held accountable because you want them to make more cars. That's an insult to every developer who has ever released any open source code. You can have your own personal opinion on how you think Tesla should be able to take other peoples code without following the license they attached to it and do whatever they want with it, but it has no bearing on the fact they are doing it and violating the GPL. Including it from another vendor, such as NVIDIA, also does not matter. They are still distributing it themselves whenever they deliver the car.

Seriously, stop. You're just making yourselves look like asshats.

Totally agree. The best thing to do when presented with perspectives that differ from ones own is to quote those perspectives (even if they include facts and evidence) and then laugh at them and call them names. That will get them to realize the error of their ways and why their points are totally invalid.

If Tesla is truly as guilty as you claim they are, why do you still own one of their products? If I felt as strongly as you did on this issue, you better believe I would have rectified my mistake and gotten the offending product out of my life. There are plenty of cars on the market who are not accused of stealing software, so why give your money to one of the few car manufacturers who allegedly does? It's obviously a deeply personal issue for you. I'm not saying don't fight, but even you have to realize it looks a little bit hypocritical. I understand perhaps being an investor (there are "Activist Investors" that invest in companies that do things they dislike in the hopes of stopping the company from doing those things, such as certain Microsoft investors who want them to drop all consumer-facing aspects of the company and go enterprise only) but being an active consumer of a company that, in your eyes, is unquestionably so in the wrong?

I don't care how cool the product is. If I believe the company made that product immorally, I would not use that product.

 

[breser]

These are all wrong, 100%.

Not sure why you're quoting my post given my position. I don't think it's necessary to call people names even if we disagree.

- - - Updated - - -

If Tesla is truly as guilty as you claim they are, why do you still own one of their products? If I felt as strongly as you did on this issue, you better believe I would have rectified my mistake and gotten the offending product out of my life. There are plenty of cars on the market who are not accused of stealing software, so why give your money to one of the few car manufacturers who allegedly does? It's obviously a deeply personal issue for you. I'm not saying don't fight, but even you have to realize it looks a little bit hypocritical. I understand perhaps being an investor (there are "Activist Investors" that invest in companies that do things they dislike in the hopes of stopping the company from doing those things, such as certain Microsoft investors who want them to drop all consumer-facing aspects of the company and go enterprise only) but being an active consumer of a company that, in your eyes, is unquestionably so in the wrong?

I don't care how cool the product is. If I believe the company made that product immorally, I would not use that product.

In my case. I don't have a black and white view of the world. Good people do bad things sometimes. Sometimes it's just a matter of not being aware that what they're doing is bad. I've bothered posting on this thread because I believe that Tesla is not complying with the license like they should. I also realize that there's not a lot of harm to myself in doing so. Given the GPLv2 and the limitation of only Tesla blessed software being able to be installed on the car (otherwise known as tivoication) I couldn't do much with the source even if they provided it. I'd like to think that maybe someone at Tesla is reading this and considering how to resolve the situation.

 

[FlasherZ]

These are all wrong, 100%.

Seriously, stop. You're just making yourselves look like asshats.

Case citations, please. I've already stated several reasons why Tesla may not be subject to what you think they are subject. You say that it's 100% wrong but offer no proof to refute the points I made.

As to what I know about the topic, suffice it to say that I've spent more time than a man or woman should with legal departments discussing obligations under open source licenses.

 

[S'toon]

Linux is open source. Free for use and modification. It's been stated that Tesla uses a specific distro of Linux. That distro is used as a base for other distros freely, ie. Mint, Peppermint, elementary, Element OS.

Any claims suing for copyright infringement would be on shaky ground.

In production and development, open source as a development model promotes a universal access via a free license to a product's design or blueprint, and universal redistribution of that design or blueprint, including subsequent improvements to it by anyone.

The OS project is publicly committed to the principles of open-source software development; people are encouraged to use free software, study how it works, improve upon it, and distribute it.

 

[breser]

Any claims suing for copyright infringement would be on shaky ground.

I'm glad you seem to have a fairly general understanding of Open Source software. However, just because something has an Open Source license doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. Though there are some licenses that go so far as to suggest that you can do whatever you want with the software, the GPLv2 license is not one of them.

Violating the license voids the permissions that the license grants. Thus triggering a copyright infringement claim.

4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under
this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
parties remain in full compliance.

 

[lagann]

Not sure why you're quoting my post given my position. I don't think it's necessary to call people names even if we disagree.

- - - Updated - - -



In my case. I don't have a black and white view of the world. Good people do bad things sometimes. Sometimes it's just a matter of not being aware that what they're doing is bad. I've bothered posting on this thread because I believe that Tesla is not complying with the license like they should. I also realize that there's not a lot of harm to myself in doing so. Given the GPLv2 and the limitation of only Tesla blessed software being able to be installed on the car (otherwise known as tivoication) I couldn't do much with the source even if they provided it. I'd like to think that maybe someone at Tesla is reading this and considering how to resolve the situation.

Sorry, I didn't mean to quote your post. Also, I'm not calling anyone names. All the arguments and citations I gave disproving what has been stated are in the other thread. It's reached the point where you can keep linking to everything, but people don't want it to be true, and basically refuse to read any of it. It's obvious that there is a lot of hostility towards GPL and open source by many people, as evidenced by the responses that have been posted in these threads.

- - - Updated - - -

Totally agree. The best thing to do when presented with perspectives that differ from ones own is to quote those perspectives (even if they include facts and evidence) and then laugh at them and call them names. That will get them to realize the error of their ways and why their points are totally invalid.

If Tesla is truly as guilty as you claim they are, why do you still own one of their products? If I felt as strongly as you did on this issue, you better believe I would have rectified my mistake and gotten the offending product out of my life. There are plenty of cars on the market who are not accused of stealing software, so why give your money to one of the few car manufacturers who allegedly does? It's obviously a deeply personal issue for you. I'm not saying don't fight, but even you have to realize it looks a little bit hypocritical. I understand perhaps being an investor (there are "Activist Investors" that invest in companies that do things they dislike in the hopes of stopping the company from doing those things, such as certain Microsoft investors who want them to drop all consumer-facing aspects of the company and go enterprise only) but being an active consumer of a company that, in your eyes, is unquestionably so in the wrong?

I don't care how cool the product is. If I believe the company made that product immorally, I would not use that product.

The fact that I own a car actually pushes me to be more involved in this. I love my car, and what Tesla is trying to do, and I'm holding them to my high standards I have for them.

 

[breser]

Case citations, please. I've already stated several reasons why Tesla may not be subject to what you think they are subject. You say that it's 100% wrong but offer no proof to refute the points I made.

As to what I know about the topic, suffice it to say that I've spent more time than a man or woman should with legal departments discussing obligations under open source licenses.

Just to be clear. You're not going to find a lot of case law specifically on open source licenses.

The only US case I'm aware of is Jacobsen v. Katzer. Which was about the Artistic License (which happens to be a very poorly written license in comparison to the GPL). But ultimately held that the requirements of the license were conditions and not covenents and as such violating the requirements resulted in a copyright infringement claim.

Lawsuits against various companies for similar things to what we're talking about with Tesla have been filled over the years. But they almost always end up being settled and aren't challenged. I believe the furthest any of these cases have gotten was the Westinghouse Digital Electronics, LLC case where Westinghouse ended up going bankrupt during the case and stopped participating in the case and a default judgement was awarded against them (the other entities settled):
http://sfconservancy.org/docs/2010-07-27_dj-opinion.pdf

Granted this doesn't prove a whole lot it since it was a default judgement. I do think it shows that there is reasonable cause to believe that violating the GPLv2 (as the Busybox software involved in this case is also licensed under) is cause for a copyright infringement.

I'd caution the reliance on advice given by various legal departments with respect to copyright law. The law is very confusing. Many parts of it only apply to certain mediums. Many bits of it open to a great deal of interpretation. I've learned what I know by reading a lot of different opinions about the law from various copyright law experts (including Lawrence Rosen who someone in one of these threads linked to earlier).

But no I'm not a lawyer and I'm certainly open to being proven wrong. But it's my personal opinion that I find it highly unlikely that Tesla falls into some very narrow and very hypothetical cracks in the license with regard to the source availability on object code distribution clauses.

 

[S'toon]

OK, look at it this way.

I've known which distro Tesla is using for months. If I know, then they know. If they know, and they're not OK with it, then who are random people on a forum to go around threatening lawsuits on their behalf for copyright infringement? They'd have filed for a law suit already.

 

[FlasherZ]

Sorry, I didn't mean to quote your post. Also, I'm not calling anyone names.

Seriously, stop. You're just making yourselves look like asshats.

How is that not calling names?

No, you haven't refuted the points in the other thread, in this thread, or anywhere. You make a blanket claim that anyone who doesn't agree with your position on the matter is openly hostile toward the GPL, and that can't be further from the truth with me. I'm not a member of Stallman's Communist Software Army, but I'm not the opposite of that, either.

As I said previously, for some time I was the author of a chunk of code in the Linux kernel (since retired), and some of my code in a few other side projects lives on today, happily subject to the GPL. I have first-hand, direct experience with the topic at hand, and point out that the black-and-white conclusion you and others are reaching isn't as black-and-white as it seems. Until a judgment establishes precedent as part of case law, the waters are still murky. And until then, neither you nor I can claim we're 100% right or the other is 100% wrong.

 

[breser]

I've known which distro Tesla is using for months. If I know, then they know. If they know, and they're not OK with it, then who are random people on a forum to go around threatening lawsuits on their behalf for copyright infringement? They'd have filed for a law suit already.

We're not really talking about the distribution here, we're talking about just the kernel.

I don't believe anyone has threatened a lawsuit. I do believe that one individual has claimed that work towards that is in progress. But with respect to the Linux kernel really only kernel developers can make a copyright infringement claim.

There are a number of reasons why a copyright infringement suit hasn't been filed yet.

• A Kernel Developer who actually has their code in the binary that Tesla is using has to be the one bringing the action. There are a number of modules and not everything may be included in the binary. So being sure that your specific code is included in important. That almost certainly means extract the firmware and determining what code is there. Tesla hasn't made that particularly easy.
• Most people involved in the community don't really want to file law suits. They'd much rather see that companies comply voluntarily. So filing suits is left as a last resort. It usually takes a number of years of talking with a company before anyone gets this far. The Model S has only been out since late 2012. It's possible nobody has progressed this far.
• It costs money to file a suit and take it to court. Most of the appropriate people don't have the money to do this. So they depend on non-profits like the Software Freedom Law Center to bring these suits. These places have limited resources and tend to group up similar cases and take them to court together. Allowing them to better use their resources.
• In order to get the best results from a copyright infringement claim you need to register the copyright and do so within 3 months of the release of the software. They may be waiting for Tesla to use a version that has been registered with the copyright office for this purpose.
• They may be waiting for it to be clear that Tesla is not complying due to willful infringement. The longer they wait after notifying Tesla and the more opportunity they give Tesla to resolve the matter the more likely Tesla's non-compliance will be consider willful.
• Without a registered copyright and willful infringement the damages for infringement are very small. As a result you might not even recoup the cost of litigation.

The absence of a law suit in progress does not mean that what Tesla is doing is OK. It just means nobody has taken them to court yet.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not a member of Stallman's Communist Software Army, but I'm not the opposite of that, either.

In fairness you're also engaging in name calling. I'm not a member of the Free Software Foundation and personally tend to license all of my code under the Apache Software License. So I wouldn't consider myself a follower of Stallman. But I find the mention of Communism to be pejorative.

 

[FlasherZ]

The absence of a law suit in progress does not mean that what Tesla is doing is OK. It just means nobody has taken them to court yet.

...and likewise, it also doesn't mean that what Tesla is doing is not OK - I've pointed out the cases where Tesla would not be responsible for delivering source code, real cases that occur in industry daily, that are being dismissed without consideration.

In fairness you're also engaging in name calling. I'm not a member of the Free Software Foundation and personally tend to license all of my code under the Apache Software License. So I wouldn't consider myself a follower of Stallman. But I find the mention of Communism to be pejorative.

I didn't call you or anyone else a member of his army, either. Stallman has said on a number of occasions that he believes that all software should be owned by no one - i.e., communism. Nothing pejorative about it -- he has quite an extreme view, and "communist" is indeed the proper word to describe it; I merely said I wasn't on either extreme end of the spectrum.

- - - Updated - - -

(and for what it's worth, even Stallman violated the GPL himself between 2009 and 2011...)

Re: Compiled files without sources????

As I mentioned in the other thread, we seem to be circling. There is still no proof that Tesla is copying/distributing by the legal terms, only assumptions of such. I've posed plausible reasons why they may not be subject to it, while recognizing that, yes, Tesla could be violating the GPL. I tried to caution against jumping to conclusions based on assumptions, based on my experience working with legal counsel on open source responsibilities, but the assumptions continue on how Tesla handles code. My best to you all.

 

[breser]

...and likewise, it also doesn't mean that what Tesla is doing is not OK - I've pointed out the cases where Tesla would not be responsible for delivering source code, real cases that occur in industry daily, that are being dismissed without consideration.

And I never said the lack of a lawsuit was proof they were doing anything wrong. It'd be a pretty absurd suggestion and I find it annoying that you implied as much with this reply.

I'd love to see these dismissals on GPL copyright claims over the scenarios you've suggested. I'm not aware of a single GPL case ever actually being dismissed in the scenarios you've presented. I'm actually can only think of two that got before a judge, one outside the US and the one I already linked.

(and for what it's worth, even Stallman violated the GPL himself between 2009 and 2011...)

Re: Compiled files without sources????

If you actually read that thread. Chong Yidong violated the GPL by committing the binaries. The Free Software Foundation (FSF) didn't in distributing the binaries because they own the copyright to GNU EMacs (FSF works on a copyright assignment so is the single holder of the copyright on their projects). Anyone that redistributed the binaries may or may not have violated the GPL. If they relied on the information they received as to the offer to distribute the source code (3c clause) then they probably aren't in violation since...

4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.

Emphasis again mine. As long as they simply passed along the info they received with the binaries as to where to find the source. They remained in compliance.

Anyone relying on 3a or 3b would be in violation since they wouldn't have the complete source code.

It's not clear that Stallman himself falls into one of those situations. But it's possible. I don't know to what degree he was distributing Emacs personally as opposed to just telling people where to find it on the FSF website. Then again Stallman as the President of the FSF could claim he was acting as an officer of the FSF and didn't ever violate the GPL.

Then again I don't think Stallman would go so far as to lawyer around the license like that and would just fix things by providing the source, which is exactly what happened as soon as the issue was discovered.

But hey, you found a thread that you can spin to suit your politics. Congratulations. You win again.

 

[lagann]

How is that not calling names?

I apologize. This whole topic is frustrating and I spoke a bit too harshly. I didn't mean to hurt anyone's feelings or call them names.

 

[neroden]

We're not really talking about the distribution here, we're talking about just the kernel.

I don't believe anyone has threatened a lawsuit. I do believe that one individual has claimed that work towards that is in progress. But with respect to the Linux kernel really only kernel developers can make a copyright infringement claim.

There are a number of reasons why a copyright infringement suit hasn't been filed yet.

• A Kernel Developer who actually has their code in the binary that Tesla is using has to be the one bringing the action. There are a number of modules and not everything may be included in the binary. So being sure that your specific code is included in important. That almost certainly means extract the firmware and determining what code is there. Tesla hasn't made that particularly easy.
• Most people involved in the community don't really want to file law suits. They'd much rather see that companies comply voluntarily. So filing suits is left as a last resort. It usually takes a number of years of talking with a company before anyone gets this far. The Model S has only been out since late 2012. It's possible nobody has progressed this far.

• 
  They're in the "talking" stage. Tesla is being deliberately obstructionist. Yes, it will apparently take years.
  
  If people don't believe me, they can call the Software Freedom Conservancy.
  
  When I bought my car, I assumed Tesla was going to comply -- because everything they'd said previously had implied that they would. I was startled to see that they had not complied, so I called them up and notified them about the problem, hoping for a quick resolution When I got no followup, I called them up again. Eventually, getting a bit annoyed, I called their legal department specifically and notified them. After a *year* had passed with no response, I contacted the representatives of the copyright holders, and provided sufficient evidence for them to start investigating. They then told me that these cases often take a really long time, and that Tesla had specifically hired a law firm which was known to specialize in delaying tactics (not that there's anything wrong with that as a law speciality).
  
  - - - Updated - - -
  
  

  Okay so here's the source code you wanted:
  
  https://github.com/torvalds/linux

  Tesla is specifically required to provide configuration files. I specifically requested configuration files. There is a specific reason for that: I want to know how they're configuring the kernel in order to handle the low-power, sleep/wakeup issues. I suspect there may be some simple fixes they haven't thought of. I have a right to those configuration files according to the GPL license, and Tesla is specifically not providing them.
  
  - - - Updated - - -
  
  

  Let's just presume that Tesla is using the Linux kernel for the purposes of this post. I understand there is the question of proof there.

  It's been proven sufficiently to allow for subpoenas and discovery. By screenshots posted by people who were watching during servicing visits, among other things.
  
  - - - Updated - - -
  
  

  There is still no proof that Tesla is copying/distributing by the legal terms, only assumptions of such.

  There's enough proof for Tesla to lose on summary judgement. They're violating at least one (probably several) BSD-type / MIT-type licenses, too. Those have hardly any requirements *apart* from the requirement to credit the authors, which of course Tesla is not doing.
  
  This matters. Getting credit is a valuable thing and the authors are being deprived of its benefits.
  
  

  I've posed plausible reasons why they may not be subject to it,

  No, you haven't.
  

  while recognizing that, yes, Tesla could be violating the GPL.

  Which Tesla is violating. Other embedded device makers have been sued for exactly the same thing and have settled.
  
  Really, I'd just like them to clean up their act. Seriously, how long does it take to publish their fscking configuration files for the Linux kernel? I gave them a year before I got fed up and contacted the representatives of the copyright holders. Partly because I figured the representatives of the copyright holders might be more stringent than I was, and I wanted to go easy on Tesla. Tesla has still published nothing, nothing, nothing, not even as a sign of good faith.
  
  Linux copyright holders are very mellow people. A good-faith approximate attempt to comply is generally accepted.
  
  And I'll say something else: if the company practices robust code design and maintenance practices, it's easy to comply. (For instance, IBM has systems which combine code under various open source licenses, proprietary licenses, and even *security clearance restrictions*, and handles them all correctly -- though that's an extreme example.) The only way it could be hard is if Tesla's got dangerously sloppy software development procedures, and if they do (which based on other evidence they might), this is a safety and reliability issue which should worry everyone and which Tesla should fix ASAP.

 

[aviators99]

Really, I'd just like them to clean up their act. Seriously, how long does it take to publish their fscking configuration files for the Linux kernel? I gave them a year before I got fed up and contacted the representatives of the copyright holders. Partly because I figured the representatives of the copyright holders might be more stringent than I was, and I wanted to go easy on Tesla. Tesla has still published nothing, nothing, nothing, not even as a sign of good faith.

I imagine they need to do much more than publish configuration files. I'm guessing they made substantial material changes.

They really need to publish these changes. If they didn't plan to comply, why did they agree to the license in the first place? The "counterparty" performed. Tesla got a kernel without having to write one from scratch. Tesla needs to perform their end of the contract. There's really nothing to argue about.

- - - Updated - - -

• It costs money to file a suit and take it to court. Most of the appropriate people don't have the money to do this. So they depend on non-profits like the Software Freedom Law Center to bring these suits. These places have limited resources and tend to group up similar cases and take them to court together. Allowing them to better use their resources.

By the way, I am pretty sure that if Tesla is found to have violated the GPL in court (which they would be), attorneys fees would be awarded under Copyright law (by rule).

- - - Updated - - -

My guess is that Tesla will switch to a different kernel that's under a different license. In the meantime (still my guess), since nobody is bothering them they are willfully violating the license. By the time someone gets around to it, they will settle by releasing their changes, which will be meaningless because they won't be using it anymore. Or if the new kernel isn't ready by then they will stall the case until it is.