-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Anyone want to get the source code for the Linux (etc.) in your car?
- Thread starter neroden
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Model S User Interface
Tesla's being threatened with suit for copyright violation by the copyright holders (not sure whether the suit has actually started yet). Tesla doesn't have a leg to stand on, but I was told Tesla had hired a law firm known specifically for delaying tactics. Rather than just doing what they should have done 3 years ago.
Well, yes, they certainly should. Tesla's willful misappropriation of the hard work of hundreds of programmers is not cool. These people rely on credit and reputation for future work, and Tesla's just ripping them off.
Last edited:
breser
AutoPilot Nostradamus
He's not a copyright holder so he doesn't have the right to actually sue Tesla. According to him people who actually do have that right to pursue it are.
I see. Well if the copyright holders are not concerned then I find it hard to get worked up about this. Entirely possible the actual copyright holders have looked into this and saw there is nothing there to do anything about.
breser
AutoPilot Nostradamus
I can assure you that at least some subset of copyright holders would be upset about Tesla violating this clause. It's come up numerous times in the past with other companies doing similar things to what Tesla is doing. So I really have no reason to doubt that some copyright holders are pursuing this.
Most of the time after a complaint has been made things get fixed quickly and it never gets to court. The cost and effort to comply is far less than the cost to litigate. Which is why this doesn't really make news except in the open source community.
lagann
Member
The problem is a definitive lack of proof. Without having a dump of the firmware binary they have to go off other evidence such as statements from Musk, the browser reporting as Linux, and a picture of the screen showing a Linux boot screen. It could be that some copyright holders have no clue their software is being stolen. I assure you though a case is in the process.
We know for sure it runs Linux, because someone managed to get Xorg/Firefox on there and reported the console as running Linux.
I love the passion, however misplaced and hyperbolic, that you have on this topic. Several times now it's been pointed out that there is not one shred of evidence that Tesla is willfully violating the GPL. You say that "Tesla doesn't have a leg to stand on", yet you provide no evidence that they're willfully refusing to comply. Perhaps an e-mail from someone at Tesla saying "we don't release the source code for the GPL components that we are using" might help your case?
The topic is very nuanced and isn't as simple as "no tarball on web site, therefore VIOLATION!11!OMGWTFBBQ!!!ELEVENTYONE!!!11!!11!!!!" that you seem to be putting forth. Did they assemble their own components? Did they use a commercial distribution intact, without modification? What business relationship do they have with the creator of a distribution that may allow them to merely refer to a distribution's site? There are many, many more questions that determine whether they are required to publish anything, or merely provide a pointer. You have spewed much conjecture but zero fact.
- - - Updated - - -
Accuracy is important... they connected to the Ethernet bus in the car and used tools to list the X display's characteristics, along with reporting the OpenSSH version string. Firefox was NOT installed on the car's touchscreen; rather, they ran it on a local PC and exported the application's display across the network.
These strings can be made to read anything you'd like them to read, so they're not a smoking gun. Perhaps probable cause to raise questions...
lagann
Member
Elon's public statements that they are using Linux is really all the evidence you need to make these accusations.
breser
AutoPilot Nostradamus
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.
Doesn't say that they're using a modified version of anything though. And note that modified means modified from a version with a copyright held by someone else. For all we know, someone at Tesla might have had patches sent upstream.
JimmyAZ
Member
For someone that doesn't even have the car yet - and making some very aggressive claims for code, I wouldn't be surprised if you received your deposit back in the mail and a "Thank you, but no thank you." letter from Tesla. Careful about your pushy behavior. We've already seen it backfire once. I for one wouldn't be surprised in the slightest.
breser
AutoPilot Nostradamus
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?
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.
breser
AutoPilot Nostradamus
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.
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.
Actually no. This would be a civil case. Preponderance of the evidence would be the legal standard.
- - - Updated - - -
Modification only means that you can't rely on a third party to distribute the source for you and have to do it yourself. If Tesla has not modified the code and they're getting it for kernel.org then a link there would be sufficient to comply with the license. But they are still obligated to distribute that link every single time they are distributing the resulting object code from the unmodified source.
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)
breser
AutoPilot Nostradamus
I think a lot of people get caught up in this whole modification and derivative work issue because it is the more difficult issue to consider. So a lot of people have heard about the issues with modifying GPL code and understand that such modifications require additional effort to comply with the license.
I would agree that there is considerable room for debate as to what constitutes a derivative work. But that's not even really an important issue in this situation. I'd presume that Tesla isn't stupid and that they did their own code in the user space where as I've mentioned above there is a clear statement saying that such a thing would not be considered a derivative work. If not then yes that could get more complicated.
However, they still aren't complying with the license even if you presume they made no modifications due to the requirements to provide the source code or an offer for the source code along with any object code.
I would agree that there is considerable room for debate as to what constitutes a derivative work. But that's not even really an important issue in this situation. I'd presume that Tesla isn't stupid and that they did their own code in the user space where as I've mentioned above there is a clear statement saying that such a thing would not be considered a derivative work. If not then yes that could get more complicated.
However, they still aren't complying with the license even if you presume they made no modifications due to the requirements to provide the source code or an offer for the source code along with any object code.
Similar threads
