Knowing what we do about Mr. Musk, I'm not sure this is the right attitude and approach to get what you want.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
OSS and Tesla
- Thread starter lagann
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Model S User Interface
Knowing what we do about Mr. Musk, I'm not sure this is the right attitude and approach to get what you want.
patrick42h
Member
Is there some kind of middle ground between Tesla continuing to violate the GPL and Tesla laying bare all the software it has written on top of GPL code? I don't want to see my favorite car company do something dishonest or illegal and I don't want to see their awesome software get pirated and copied all over the place.
I'm sure that when they started building the touchscreen interface, they didn't have the time or money to build from scratch. Ubuntu was fairly mature and it seemed like a good place to start in order to deliver Model S on time. Now that they have more time and more financial stability, do they ditch their Ubuntu-based system and start from scratch?
I'm sure that when they started building the touchscreen interface, they didn't have the time or money to build from scratch. Ubuntu was fairly mature and it seemed like a good place to start in order to deliver Model S on time. Now that they have more time and more financial stability, do they ditch their Ubuntu-based system and start from scratch?
That's not how the GPL works. All of Telsa's own code, that they wrote themselves (this would include the UI, proprietary device drivers, car control software, etc. etc.) is theirs and can remain closed source. What GPL mandates is that if Telsa used GPL licensed code (such as the linux kernel, other utilities) and MODIFIED it for their own purposes, then they must release those modifications back to the community. A well architected embedded system based on Linux should contain very few such modifications, and so their exposure is probably quite limited. A lot of folks in industry get very excited (negatively) about what GPL implies, but in reality most things you care about are LGPL which is far more lenient as long as you use it without modification. If you don't modify the core OS and kernel, you don't have anything to release. Having said that, they should of course comply to the extent they need to, but I'd be surprised if there was a lot there.
I think the disconnect is that folks are saying "comply with the GPL, release the modifications and the list of open-source packages used", perhaps a bit vehemently, and Elon is hearing "open source the car". That's my guess.
green1
Active Member
I'm not sure this statement makes any sense. Tesla are the ones pirating the software (copying without reimbursing the author (where the author's requested payment method is to pass on any changes)) And yet you're worried about other people "pirating" their software to use on what exactly? anyone building a car to compete with the model S has plenty of resources to build software that's every bit as good and capable as Tesla, and your average person gains nothing by running "Tesla OS" on their PC at home.
I am sorry, I missed the part where anyone provided any evidence that Tesla "stole", "pirated", or even modified anything GPL related.
patrick42h
Member
I was mistaken trying to get involved in this. It is clearly over my head. Please continue shredding each other over a software license.
Yes. There are fairly well-known ways for GPL, LGPL, and closed-source code to co-exist within a commercially-sold software system. I used to be one of the senior engineers on a commercial appliance based on Linux and we lived by these rules, which weren't arcane or hard to follow.
Going slightly off-topic, it also bears mentioning that GPL and OSS are not the same thing. There are other open-source licenses, such as the various BSD licenses, that don't require redistribution of source code under any circumstances at all. All of the open source code I've ever written was either placed in the public domain or was released under a BSD license.
Peace,
Bruce.
Elon has repeatedly stated that it's a Linux OS. If they have not modified the code, they have to at the very least state what they included. For instance, if they put kernel 2.6.37, they'd have to say something like "Contains Linux kernel 2.6.37 downloaded from kernel.org" kernel.org has a howto on how to comply with the license. Also, if they aren't complying to the license, then yes, they are stealing it.
Here's the howto: How to comply with GPL version 2.
- - - Updated - - -
Oh, also, Tesla is a great company. This is very shady and very unlike them, and makes the company look bad. They are a very high profile company, and should be a model to other companies on how to do it right.
Of course it's not legal advice. A simple howto would be a terrible idea to use as legal advice. In the event you're getting sued, don't look at a howto, talk to a lawyer! :tongue:
Joules Verne
Member
I don't really get this thread. Just because Tesla uses Linux in their product doesn't mean they have to open source their proprietary value add, which is what the OP seems to be after. If that were the case, nobody would use (or support) it for commercial product development.
This is not what GPL is about, regardless of what the zealots might want to think.
It really all depends on what they did with it, and how they integrated with it, and I'm not about to make assumptions about their implementation.
Now if all you want is compliance with crediting the use of open source components, then I agree that this should be made openly available on their website. This is the crap that keeps companies like Black Duck Software in business .
This is not what GPL is about, regardless of what the zealots might want to think.
It really all depends on what they did with it, and how they integrated with it, and I'm not about to make assumptions about their implementation.
Now if all you want is compliance with crediting the use of open source components, then I agree that this should be made openly available on their website. This is the crap that keeps companies like Black Duck Software in business .
I don't think you have read the thread. This was all discussed already... I'm just looking for compliance
Has anyone looked at Qt Linux's ToS? According to their website, if a Commercial license is used:
"If you are developing a Qt-based device, a commercial license is recommended to embed and control Qt on your device. A commercial license allows you to, for example, control your device’s user experience, build proprietary functionality on top of Qt and to lock down your device to create your own developer ecosystem. A commercial license from The Qt Company keeps your code proprietary where only you can control and monetize on your end product’s development, user experience and distribution."
"If you are developing a Qt-based device, a commercial license is recommended to embed and control Qt on your device. A commercial license allows you to, for example, control your device’s user experience, build proprietary functionality on top of Qt and to lock down your device to create your own developer ecosystem. A commercial license from The Qt Company keeps your code proprietary where only you can control and monetize on your end product’s development, user experience and distribution."
Sure. And that solves it for qt which is one software component of a least a couple of tens.
Point is that OSS is only free to use if you follow the rules in each components license. That means you have to keep track of each of them and handle each of them.
So what Tesla must do is at least the following (assuming mostly GPL, LGPL and BSD style licenses).
1. List each OSS component and give credit.
2. Publish all changes done to each component unless the license says they don't have to (like BSD). This includes in the case of GPL any linked (static or dynamic doesn't matter) code. And since the linux kernel is GPL, this includes all drivers (unless something have changed recently in this area).
This is not something they can do to be nice. This is something that is legally mandatory.
I would suggest that until you know Tesla has violated any licensing agreement, using loaded terms like "stole", "pirated" or "shady" are in poor form.
It seems that some folks are under the impression that Linux runs the entire car--it does not, to quote JB Straubel:
This should not be a huge surprise to anyone as you can happily reboot your displays while tooling down the highway without impacting the operations of the vehicle. If everything that Tesla is doing, say the media app, sits in user space atop Qt, I am not sure there is anything that Tesla would need to disclose anything further since they (presumably) have a commercial license from Qt and are only distributing their own apps.
Do I know this for sure? No, but I am also not the one making accusations.
It seems that some folks are under the impression that Linux runs the entire car--it does not, to quote JB Straubel:
This should not be a huge surprise to anyone as you can happily reboot your displays while tooling down the highway without impacting the operations of the vehicle. If everything that Tesla is doing, say the media app, sits in user space atop Qt, I am not sure there is anything that Tesla would need to disclose anything further since they (presumably) have a commercial license from Qt and are only distributing their own apps.
Do I know this for sure? No, but I am also not the one making accusations.
You should read the whole thread before you make misinformed comments. This was all discussed and agreed on that they are violating licenses. If they are distributing the kernel they must give at least the names and versions of all GPL code contained in the car, that's if they haven't modified it.
you seem to making the assumption they modify the kernel.
its not likely they do that as there is simply no reason to.
Similar threads
