Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

OSS and Tesla

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
I don't know why companies run away from the idea of open sourcing.
Typcial situation when people who don't understand software, are making these decisions, about software.
It's a short term win, for a lot of long term pain. It has not served anyone well to be closed.

Microsoft tried being closed, didn't work out for them.
Now Apple is doing the same mistake - and it shows. Their software is less secure, and more buggy, than Microsoft's.

Tesla, should consider open sourcing their software.
I understand it cannot be done overnight given the security requirements.
But still, its the right thing to do.

And sure there is the other part about violating GPL.
 
you seem to making the assumption they modify the kernel.
its not likely they do that as there is simply no reason to.
1. They don't have to modify it to have to comply with its licensing terms. Distributing it also triggers those terms and although they don't have to release any code, they still have to list what they run and give credit.
2. The same applies for any other GPL, LGPL and BSD licensed component. And even on a bare linux system for embedded computing, there are at least a dozen or more... List and give credit.

3. Since linux drivers are dynamically linked to the GPL-licensed kernel, they have to open source (with GPL license) all their proprietary and modified/tweaked drivers if there are any.

This is of course only for those subsystems that run any OSS SW.

It doesn't matter if a piece of software cost a lot of money or if it's freely available for anyone to download and the source code as well. You still have to comply with the licensing agreement for each piece of software or stop using that software.

if we take JB's word for it that they run some form of linux on at least one system, it is perfectly clear that they don't comply with the licensing agreement for the linux kernel.
Then they most likely need one form of libc, which they in that case also violates the licensing agreement for.

So question is, how do we get Tesla to comply? It is much better they do that voluntarily now. Otherwise someone will sooner or later go sue them with all the negative press that will follow from that...
 
Yeah i agree with op on this subject. There has been too many companies riding on oss and not giving credit or plubishing the code. As a developer, i am 100% sure they have modified something in the kernel to support all the external hardware. Heck the screen they are using requires the lcd kernel driver to be modified or newly created. If newly created, i am sure they have to wire it back up somehow to the rest of the kernel, hence modification of the kernel.

As much as i like tesla and am a tesla stock holder, i vote for them to comply with the law and release the modifications. It is only fair and potentially reduce lawsuit down the road ultimately saving tesla litigation money.

If the software is indeed not the critical stuff like others have stated, then it is all the reason for tesla to release the code. It wont be a security reason.
 
I don't know why companies run away from the idea of open sourcing.
Typcial situation when people who don't understand software, are making these decisions, about software.
It's a short term win, for a lot of long term pain. It has not served anyone well to be closed.

Microsoft tried being closed, didn't work out for them.
Now Apple is doing the same mistake - and it shows. Their software is less secure, and more buggy, than Microsoft's.

Tesla, should consider open sourcing their software.
I understand it cannot be done overnight given the security requirements.
But still, its the right thing to do.

And sure there is the other part about violating GPL.
Just from reading this thread alone, I come to the opposite conclusion. YMMV, I suppose.
 
You should read the whole thread before you make misinformed comments.

Just because I have the audacity to not agree with you does not mean I have not read the thread.

This was all discussed and agreed on that they are violating licenses.

Great, so people with no direct knowledge of what is going on have decided that Tesla MUST be doing something wrong...don't see how that can go wrong...:rolleyes:
 
Just because I have the audacity to not agree with you does not mean I have not read the thread.



Great, so people with no direct knowledge of what is going on have decided that Tesla MUST be doing something wrong...don't see how that can go wrong...:rolleyes:
If we make the asumption that JB Strauel is correct and the center console is running linux then we know they are not complying with the license for it. Quite simple actually...
 
If we make the asumption that JB Strauel is correct and the center console is running linux then we know they are not complying with the license for it. Quite simple actually...

If the center stack is running QT Linux (which it is) and Tesla has paid for a commercial license, they are not obligated to release anything. Did you not see the QT terms of use link I put in here?
 
If the center stack is running QT Linux (which it is) and Tesla has paid for a commercial license, they are not obligated to release anything. Did you not see the QT terms of use link I put in here?
I've mever said they have to release anything. Especially not applications on top of Qt. They might have to, but it is currently unknown.
What is known is that the commercial license you're talking about is for Qt, not the underlying linux base system (kernel and libraries). Those parts come with their own licenses (GPLv2 for the kernel)...
 
If we make the asumption that JB Strauel is correct and the center console is running linux then we know they are not complying with the license for it. Quite simple actually...

Really? Do you really think JB doesn't know what SW is running on the car he built?. Beyond that, as someone has pointed out already, Tesla is using a packaged commercial distro of Linux (Qt). If they are simply running homegrown user space apps on top of that, what are their disclosure requirements--enlighten me....
 
Really? Do you really think JB doesn't know what SW is running on the car he built?. Beyond that, as someone has pointed out already, Tesla is using a packaged commercial distro of Linux (Qt). If they are simply running homegrown user space apps on top of that, what are their disclosure requirements--enlighten me....

Qt is not a Linux distribution. It is a UI and application framework that runs on top of Linux (and Windows, and OS X, and Android and iOS). They are still responsible to disclose any GPL components (the kernel, GNU utilities, other libraries) that they use regardless of modification. If they do modify, the requirement is further to disclose the specific modifications.
 
It is a common missunderstandning that by using GPL'ed OSS, you have to release the source. You only have to release any modified source code. And strictly speaking you only have to release the actual modification. So technically they could release tgeir patch files and that's that. IF they have modified any GPL'ed code.

Your statement is just as much of a common misunderstanding.

From the GPL v2 (which is applicable to Linux):

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
received the program in object code or executable form with such
an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

Note that this has nothing to do with modification. You are obligated to do one of the three things if you ship object code. Most commercial products that ship the Linux kernel simply include a link to their website in their documentation that either has the download link directly or points you to another source external to them. I've looked off and on and Tesla never does this. If they are using the Linux kernel (modified or not) they are almost certainly violating this clause.

If the center stack is running QT Linux (which it is) and Tesla has paid for a commercial license, they are not obligated to release anything. Did you not see the QT terms of use link I put in here?

QT is a UI library that runs on top of many operating systems. Buying a commercial license to it does not solve the problem of the license of the Linux kernel.

For what it's worth I'm a long term Open Source Software Developer. I've participated for many years in the Open Source Initiative discussions regarding licensing (which ultimately determines what is and is not Open Source Software). I have spent many years understanding open source licenses as a result.

I don't think anyone here is calling for Tesla to release all of their source. Simply complying with the licenses of the open source software they have used is what's being asked. Which if the presumption that they're using the Linux Kernel unmodified would mean absolutely nothing proprietary is released and it ends up being nothing more than some legalese in the manual, cars interface and/or website.

If Tesla has intertwined their software in such a way that they haven't protected their proprietary bits from the license then they have made a very unnecessary mistake. I seriously doubt that anything they are doing is likely to require them to modify the kernel. Almost everything should be implemented in user space. Which does not trigger any GPL requirements because of the following lines at the very top of the COPYING file for the Linux Kernel:

NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software
Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the linux
kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.

Linus Torvalds
 
Really? Do you really think JB doesn't know what SW is running on the car he built?. Beyond that, as someone has pointed out already, Tesla is using a packaged commercial distro of Linux (Qt). If they are simply running homegrown user space apps on top of that, what are their disclosure requirements--enlighten me....

QT does not own the Linux kernel. They are giving a license that you can modify the QT framework without having to release anything about it. As for the Kernel, it's not like Linus can just be like "oh yeah have a new license" You would have to get permission from EVERY single contributor to the Linux kernel (as long as you are using any of their contributions, which even just the barebone Kernel would probably have several hundred at least) to agree to a new license, which is probably actually impossible for the same reason they can't change the Linux kernel to GPLv3. Basically, if they are using the kernel anywhere in the firmware, which Elon Musk has said they are doing, then they are in violation. There is no debate or question about it, it's straight up fact. The only thing that isn't "proven" yet is that the kernel is included, but there's VERY strong evidence towards it, with Elon Musk stating it multiple times, and the browser user agent says it's Linux. All your arguments show ignorance towards this, which is why I had said to read the thread. This was discussed multiple times since so many people came in to try to argue their own misunderstanding of the GPL, or OSS in general. If the kernel is included, at the very least they need to say for EACH firmware release which version is included, and that's only if they have made NO modifications whatsoever.

- - - Updated - - -

Curious, has there ever been a successful GPL non-compliance suit?

The last I had heard was that no company being sued has ever let it be brought to court. I believe they were all settled beforehand and became compliant/paid for a commercial license from the developer. This is what I've heard, though. I could be completely wrong.
 
The last I had heard was that no company being sued has ever let it be brought to court. I believe they were all settled beforehand and became compliant/paid for a commercial license from the developer. This is what I've heard, though. I could be completely wrong.

Largely because complying is so absurdly easy, especially if there are no modifications as many are asserting here.
 
Sadly, I'm not certain that Tesla is in violation of the GPL,
They are in violation of the GPL. The Linux copyright holders are already pursuing it, but I was warned that these cases generally take 5 years or more. And Tesla hired a law firm which specifically specializes in delaying tactics. Now you know.

- - - Updated - - -
(The cases almost never go to court...)
Largely because complying is so absurdly easy, especially if there are no modifications as many are asserting here.

Yep. This is why it's ridiculous that Tesla has been infringing on copyright and ripping off the work of hundreds of developers. It's really easy to comply.

I can't sue personally because I don't have any contributions to the Linux kernel. If you know someone who does, they *can* sue personally. If I were one of them, I'd ask for punitive damages because this behavior by Tesla is willful and deliberate and has no justification.

- - - Updated - - -

If anyone wants to see a good example of what I think Sarah is calling for, the Pebble Smartwatch folks have such a page on their website:
https://getpebble.com/legal/open_source

Yep. This is precisely what I expected Tesla to do, until they decided to be all criminal and thievy instead. I still find Tesla's behavior incomprehensible. Musk needs to fire his legal department and hire some real lawyers, who will tell him "Why don't you just DO it?"

- - - Updated - - -

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.
We have proof that Tesla has violated the licensing agreements for the Linux kernel, repeatedly. Enough proof to convince some of the copyright holders' representatives to start the process of filing suit. "Pirated" and "Shady" are 100% correct. The crazy thing about this is how *pointlessly stupid* it is on the part of Tesla. Just release the source code for your version of the Linux kernel, complete with configuration files.

- - - Updated - - -

Knowing what we do about Mr. Musk, I'm not sure this is the right attitude and approach to get what you want.

As a stockholder, I don't appreciate Musk exposing the company to unnecessary legal risk, and this is *extremely* unnecessary legal risk.

- - - Updated - - -

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,
I made it very explicitly clear exactly what they needed to do, emphasizing that they did not need to open-source their own proprietary modules, when I called them the first time. And the second time, when I didn't get a call back. (I didn't get a call back the second time either.)

I'm also pretty sure the representatives of the copyright holders made it very explicit exactly what Tesla needed to do when *they* called -- I contacted them after Tesla had failed to comply with the license for roughly a year, which really should have been enough time.

and Elon is hearing "open source the car".
If that's what he's hearing, he needs to turn his ears on.

Now, the following is merely a guess: There is some suspicion that there are problems with the nVidia drivers. nVidia has been skating very close to violating copyright repeatedly, and Tesla may have tripped up by trusting nVidia. (Never trust nVidia.) IIRC, with at least one version, you couldn't legally distribute the proprietary nVidia drivers and the Linux kernel together in binary form.

This sort of thing is why Tesla needs competent lawyers rather than the professional clowns they currently have on staff.
 
The sad truth is that the costs of non-compliance and delaying compliance are minimal and they will not make it a priority. Show me a GPL suit that ended in punitive damages.

There was one in Germany. I think it's about time to have one in the US. Tesla's behavior has been exceptionally egregious, since they were notified by email (by me, I think I still have the email) of their obligations prior to the manufacture of the first Model S.