-
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
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 (and others) 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? Are they sourcing a complete-with-software component from another vendor? There are many, many more questions that determine whether they are required to publish anything, or merely provide a pointer, or have no legal liability at all. You have spewed much conjecture but zero fact for three years.
Bottom line: if you have definitive proof, out with it. Otherwise, I'm sure Don Quixote could use another partner. Prove that Tesla 1) falls under the jurisdiction of GPL , but be sure you cover the cases in which it might not be required (e.g., a business partnership where by a complete component including software is sourced from another company); and 2) refuses to release to you the source (or pointer to the source) in the form of a communication from them. Just saying "a case is in the works" is BS... see groklaw.net as a more-than-sufficient defense against that one. Just saying "WE KNOW THEY USE LINUX SO THEREFORE GPL VIOLATION!!!111!!ELEVENTYOMGWTFBBQONE!!11!!" is not proper legal analysis and will earn you an F for the attempt.
Elon's comments about not releasing source was for THEIR COMPONENTS... You can argue closed-source vs. open-source until the cows come home, but conflating the two is disingenuous at best.
(And for what it's worth, I am a copyright holder to a few lines in some older Linux kernels -- for antique platforms and long retired from current sources -- as well as a few other side projects. I haven't seen any evidence that Tesla is willfully violating anything yet; I'm not saying they aren't, but I'm saying that no one here has shown a shred of evidence yet.)
Last edited:
breser
AutoPilot Nostradamus
Please read this post of mine:
OSS and Tesla - Page 6
It doesn't matter where Tesla sourced the Linux Kernel they are using. They are obligated at a minimum to provide a notice of how to obtain the source code. They are obligated to provide this notice every time they distribute the object code. I've yet to ever find this notice despite looking.
Tesla also can't just offer the source code if you ask for it. The notice has to be provided with the object code. Which means when they sell the car at a minimum and possibly when they update the software (if they update the kernel in that software update).
There is evidence that they're running Linux for at least the 17" display. This was shown with port scans using the 4-pin ethernet connector. Therefore they have to comply with GPL. Even if they are distributing unmodified versions of Linux, they also need to distribute the source code.
Pretty cut and dry.
Actually, if it were as "cut and dry[sic]" as you say it is, then Tesla would likely have been nailed to the wall long, long ago, along with nearly 100% of IT technology distributors throughout the world. Neroden wouldn't have so many deal breakers and would be happy with his Model S. Such is not the case, however.
I still stand by my assertion that no one here, on this thread, has credibly delivered a legal analysis and proof of this license violation. All I see is a bunch of personal definitions of "distribute" to suit the authors' points of view. No one (yet) has proven that Tesla has directly "distributed" Linux in the legal sense of the license, nor has provided case citations that support their position that Tesla has distributed Linux by disproving any of the other ways in which Tesla would not have to take specific performance to advise its customers. All I have seen is people who scream "So logically, if J.B. has said Linux, Linux is on the car... and therefore... WITCH! A WITCH!" (Apologies to Sir Vladimir)
Just because the law is clear doesn't mean that more powerful entities won't take advantage of less powerful ones. Note politicians who steal musicians work for use in their campaigns. And large retailers stealing independent artists work for their t-shirt designs. And large tech firms stealing IP from startups. Ever worked at a company that uses unlicensed software? It's demonstrably and historically hard for the less powerful copyright holders to extract justice from more powerful infringers.
Not sure which part you disagree with, so here are some enumerated assertions that I believe, and that you can disagree with:
1) The Tesla runs linux for at least some subset of functionality. I don't have direct proof, but the combination of user agent and the claims from the guy who actually got FireFox running on the screen seem like reliable indicators.
2) Tesla is distributing (or conveying) linux under the legal definition of the GPLv3, section 4. This gives them the benefit of the doubt that they haven't modified it in any way.
3) Tesla is required to also distribute the Source Code associated with the build, as specified in GPLv3, section 6b. Here's the text:
[6]b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.
4) Tesla doesn't need to release source for any libraries or components built on top of the GPL code (as specified again in Section 6): "A separable portion of the object code, whose source code is excluded from the Corresponding Source as a System Library, need not be included in conveying the object code work."
5) Tesla likely has more obligations than even the above based on the protection against "tivoization". In essence, because Tesla can update the firmware, they're also required to provide a way for you to install your own custom firmware. It's more complex, especially around the definition of a User Product, but that's the intent. To support the idea, Section 6 also reads:
"If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM)."
At the end of the day, I don't really care if they comply. I kind of hope they do because I'm a software engineer and would love to look at any code they've written. That opinion is separate from what I believe is a pretty straightforward set of facts that show they're out of compliance with copyright law, though.
breser
AutoPilot Nostradamus
GPLv3 is not relevant. Linux is only licensed under the GPLv2.
https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/COPYING
This language doesn't exist in GPLv3. Tesla can carry out the TiVo strategy of deploying an appliance (or car in this case), putting proprietary information into user space (which avoids any proprietary source code needing to be released) and making the hardware refuse to run code that is not provided by them.
However, none of those abilities excuses them of the requirements of GPL2 section 3 (as I'm sure you're aware).
Considering that the Linux kernel is subject to GPLv2 and not GPLv3, your approach to analysis is DOA.
The "COPYING" file associated with the kernel reads the following (it's the original GPL v2, for all intent and purposes):
Section 3 is the only section applicable for unmodified source.
First you have to reconcile the language "in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above"... sections 1 and 2 talk about source code distribution and modification. If you don't modify, you haven't distributed anything "in object code or executable form under the terms of sections 1 and 2", and therefore section 3 may not apply.
And now we need to analyze the terms "copy and distribute". Does Tesla "copy and distribute" the "program" if it sources an nVidia-based touchscreen from another supplier and merely applies firmware updates as instructed by that supplier, or is Tesla required to perform the specific action in section 3? Considering that you don't see CDW, Amazon, or TigerDirect hosting Linux source code distribution because they sell HP PC's that ship with Linux, perhaps they're operating under a different legal interpretation? Perhaps the "copy and distribute" step is considered to be done by Tesla's supplier when the touchscreen is manufactured, and not Tesla itself, in which case Tesla's supplier is on the hook, and not Tesla?
If Tesla uses a base operating system that ships on its touchscreen component from another supplier, it doesn't necessarily mean Tesla has a responsibility here.
This is why I say that no one has yet provided a sufficient analysis. There are just assumptions made that because a Model S uses Linux, that Tesla is required to provide the source code. I can tell you from working with several different legal teams that this is an incorrect assumption. It is very nuanced and isn't as simple as the Stallman communists would have you believe - that because J.B. or Elon said the word "Linux", everything Tesla does is public domain.
(EDIT: I don't think the law is fully settled here. I can be wrong, and perhaps down the road we'll see a ruling that determines that cases like this *do* require the end marketer to be responsible for it. I just haven't seen it yet, and my participation with other companies in these very same processes have taught me to consider this with far more nuances. I'm not convinced Tesla has a responsibility here; even further, I'm not sure what forcing Tesla to point you at their unmodified {Debian,Ubuntu,Fedora,whatever-distribution-they-use} accomplishes other than to create more heat than light and stir up a bunch of crap. You're not going to get the source to their UI or their intellectual property, and you're going to get a run-of-the-mill standard Linux install for TEGRA3 and TEGRA2. Want to see how it works? Download Ubuntu.)
The "COPYING" file associated with the kernel reads the following (it's the original GPL v2, for all intent and purposes):
Section 3 is the only section applicable for unmodified source.
First you have to reconcile the language "in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above"... sections 1 and 2 talk about source code distribution and modification. If you don't modify, you haven't distributed anything "in object code or executable form under the terms of sections 1 and 2", and therefore section 3 may not apply.
And now we need to analyze the terms "copy and distribute". Does Tesla "copy and distribute" the "program" if it sources an nVidia-based touchscreen from another supplier and merely applies firmware updates as instructed by that supplier, or is Tesla required to perform the specific action in section 3? Considering that you don't see CDW, Amazon, or TigerDirect hosting Linux source code distribution because they sell HP PC's that ship with Linux, perhaps they're operating under a different legal interpretation? Perhaps the "copy and distribute" step is considered to be done by Tesla's supplier when the touchscreen is manufactured, and not Tesla itself, in which case Tesla's supplier is on the hook, and not Tesla?
If Tesla uses a base operating system that ships on its touchscreen component from another supplier, it doesn't necessarily mean Tesla has a responsibility here.
This is why I say that no one has yet provided a sufficient analysis. There are just assumptions made that because a Model S uses Linux, that Tesla is required to provide the source code. I can tell you from working with several different legal teams that this is an incorrect assumption. It is very nuanced and isn't as simple as the Stallman communists would have you believe - that because J.B. or Elon said the word "Linux", everything Tesla does is public domain.
(EDIT: I don't think the law is fully settled here. I can be wrong, and perhaps down the road we'll see a ruling that determines that cases like this *do* require the end marketer to be responsible for it. I just haven't seen it yet, and my participation with other companies in these very same processes have taught me to consider this with far more nuances. I'm not convinced Tesla has a responsibility here; even further, I'm not sure what forcing Tesla to point you at their unmodified {Debian,Ubuntu,Fedora,whatever-distribution-they-use} accomplishes other than to create more heat than light and stir up a bunch of crap. You're not going to get the source to their UI or their intellectual property, and you're going to get a run-of-the-mill standard Linux install for TEGRA3 and TEGRA2. Want to see how it works? Download Ubuntu.)
Last edited:
breser
AutoPilot Nostradamus
FlasherZ, I usually respect your contributions to this board quite a bit. But you're just wrong on this stuff. Arguing with me in my area of expertise is a bit like me arguing with you about the meaning of the electrical code. It'd be a huge waste of both of our time.
Creating copies of object code is protected by copyright law in the US (and pretty much everywhere else in the world). That's settled law. The license actually says the following (emphasis mine):
I'd hope that it's obvious to you and everyone else that Tesla is creating a copy of the software every time it sells a new car and ever time it distributes an update to the cars that includes the software.
If you want to argue that the Linux Kernel is not being used by Tesla so be it. But every sign we've seen is that they are. You're entitled to that opinion.
But if you accept that Tesla is using the Linux Kernel, then they are clearly violating the licensing on the software.
Because of the way the Linux Kernel's copyright has been handled it is impossible for anyone to use it without complying with the terms of the GPLv2. Even Linus Torvalds has to comply with the license since every individual contributor continues to own their own copyright. There are certainly other software that the copyright has been handled in a different way and you might be able to buy a license from the owner that allows you to avoid the GPL. But that's not the case with the Linux Kernel.
I don't think anyone is being unreasonable in believing that Tesla is violating this licensing since they have said they are using this software and they are clearly not complying with the requirements of the license.
The requirement to provide the source code (or a notice as to where to retrieve the software) when distributing object code is not even the slightest bit controversial in the community. I've never seen someone argue that the clause is unenforceable. It does not have the legal ambiguities as the clauses about modification of the software that is tied to the interpretation of derivative works.
If we were arguing about if Tesla needed to release their own modifications, we could have a debate about if those rose to the level of creating a derivative work and thus debate if they're violating the license. But we don't even need to get this far.
If Tesla is using the Linux Kernel they are violating the license. If they aren't then they aren't.
Believe what you want on that respect.
I'm not just coming at this from the side, I've participated on a number of open source and standards councils and their associated legal teams. I'm approaching this neither unfamiliar, uneducated nor inexperienced with this topic.
Indeed, I have. I have seen several companies declare that their redistribution of another unmodified component sourced from another organization did not bind them to distribution responsibilities, and instead left it with their supplier. Now, sometimes they covered their asses by saying "Product <x> uses technology sourced from a supplier which uses a distribution of Linux. See http://blah.example.com/linux-source/ for more information". But once again, as it involved no modification or improvement, they were just redirected to a distribution's web site.
If this were true, then neroden's incessant complaining for three years would have generated more results than what it has, and every IT integrator and distributor on the planet could be sued into oblivion. eBay sellers who sell a laptop with Linux installed could be sued for not actively maintaining a source code distribution server... etc...
"Copy and distribute" doesn't mean what everyone here wants it to mean.
Last edited:
breser
AutoPilot Nostradamus
See what I've already said about CDW (it applies to Amazon or TigerDirect just as much). These resellers are complying with the license since the party that created the copy provides the required notification in their documentation and then passes it along.
I think it's really disingenuous to try and compare Tesla's role in the ecosystem to CDW and other resellers. Tesla is manufacturing and retailing the product.
Even if you want to argue that CDW et al are not copying the object code (since they don't mess with whatever is on the disk of the servers they sell) and as such aren't involved in the license issue I don't think you can make the same argument with that respect about Tesla.
But let's presume that you're right. That Tesla is only shipping the Linux Kernel that is already installed by nVidia from the factory. And let's presume that by your logic that Tesla is not violating the license by selling new cars.
This all falls apart as soon as they need to reflash a car because of a corrupted flash device. Or push out an update to fix a bug in the kernel (possibly a security bug). I think it'd be very hard to say that Tesla is not creating copies by instructing the cars to download copies onto their flash memory. You can't argue that the owners are doing this because the download process is entirely controlled by Tesla. Nevermind, the fact that in some cases Tesla employees are installing the software off their laptops hooked up to the car.
I think it is very safe to say that any argument that Tesla is not distributing the software given their actions would fail in court.
- - - Updated - - -
I think you're stretching what the distributor needs to do in those cases. If they're shipping a known distribution (say RedHat or Ubuntu) then all they really have to do is point to the source of those. The GPL allows you to rely on the source code distribution of your upstream distributor. But you're still obligated to pass that notification along.
The reason you don't see those sorts of people being sued about this is because they're passing that info along.
The reason why you haven't seen Tesla sued yet is because these sorts of things take time and most parties generally want them to comply rather than to take it to court. Many of the copyright holders generally do not have the resources to pursue this on their own so they typically have to get one of the organizations to fund something like this. Usually these sorts of issues are allowed to go on for many years before enough momentum is built up to carry the case forward.
Well, we differ on interpretation. Only case law will prove one of those interpretations right. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, although I suggest it would be a more-heat-than-light exercise that would only distract Tesla from its own groundbreaking technology.
We may find out that Tesla has rolled its own distribution by compiling its own kernels and establishing its own init, etc.; and in that case, I'm more inclined to agree with you and support the idea that Tesla should indeed release its source, although its value is arguably zero. No one has proven Tesla does this, though - and that's the point I made earlier.
We may, instead, find out that Tesla uses a stock distribution provided by its supplier in binary form, in which case things will be more nuanced. If Tesla flashes a binary image supplied in whole by a supplier, it is still not necessarily bound to supply the source. That would bind Tesla's supplier, but not Tesla. As to your reflash argument, the DMCA included language (via CMCAA, section 17 USC 117) that limited copyright owners' rights in the case of computer maintenance or repair activities. (See Storage Tech. Corp. v. Custom Hardware Eng'g & Consulting, Inc. for more information on a case where software copies required to activate/maintain/repair a machine were judged not to be subject to copyright infringement.)
I do agree that it's simple for Tesla to make the argument go away, by publishing a simple web page. But even that takes away focus from the rest of the operations of the company.
I suspect we'll find out at some point in the future, and if proven wrong, I'll be just fine with it.
We may find out that Tesla has rolled its own distribution by compiling its own kernels and establishing its own init, etc.; and in that case, I'm more inclined to agree with you and support the idea that Tesla should indeed release its source, although its value is arguably zero. No one has proven Tesla does this, though - and that's the point I made earlier.
We may, instead, find out that Tesla uses a stock distribution provided by its supplier in binary form, in which case things will be more nuanced. If Tesla flashes a binary image supplied in whole by a supplier, it is still not necessarily bound to supply the source. That would bind Tesla's supplier, but not Tesla. As to your reflash argument, the DMCA included language (via CMCAA, section 17 USC 117) that limited copyright owners' rights in the case of computer maintenance or repair activities. (See Storage Tech. Corp. v. Custom Hardware Eng'g & Consulting, Inc. for more information on a case where software copies required to activate/maintain/repair a machine were judged not to be subject to copyright infringement.)
I do agree that it's simple for Tesla to make the argument go away, by publishing a simple web page. But even that takes away focus from the rest of the operations of the company.
I suspect we'll find out at some point in the future, and if proven wrong, I'll be just fine with it.
Last edited:
breser
AutoPilot Nostradamus
I'm having a hard time seeing how distracting providing a link to some source code in some fine print can possibly be.
Distribution and init process is irrelevant. We're only talking about the kernel. There's a whole lot more software that makes up a distribution that has all manner of different licenses. Some of which may have more restrictive licenses like GPLv3 and some may have far less restrictive license like MIT. But baring seeing an actual copy of the firmware I can't comment about what licenses they may or may not be violating there. However, I feel reasonably comfortable making comments about the Linux Kernel based on their public comments about using it.
That clause of the law is all about necessary copies of the software that exist in memory when executing software and for backups (which I'm not really going to talk about). For instance on a typical computer the object code is read from disk and into memory and is then executed out of memory (that's exactly what your case was about). I'm unaware of anyone successfully arguing that such a clause allows new software to be installed on a system for which no valid license exists.
I'd also point out the fact that the maintenance and repair section points out that the "activation" copy is only allowed if the existing copy installed on the system is lawful.
If Tesla is copying the Linux Kernel onto the cars without complying with the license terms of the GPL then the copies aren't lawful. If Tesla is just shipping hardware that already had the software on the car then the maintenance and repair clause of §117 only gets them out of copyright claims from activating the car while the doing maintenance and repair on the software that was included when the car was shipped. But does not allow them to update that software because a new copy created by Tesla would not be lawful if they weren't complying with the license (and it's my belief that Tesla's firmware update process necessitates Tesla making a copy).
Quite frankly, it's much harder to jump through many hoops to be legal while avoiding complying with the source code availability clauses of the GPL than it is to simply comply with the license. I honestly can't fathom why anyone would go to so much effort to try and avoid complying.
I'm not sure why you keep on insisting tossing red herrings around. Neither one of those arguments have anything to do with Tesla complying with the GPL. They also very likely ship BSD software, and are violating it's license as well.
Go ahead and look up your user agent. You'll find that the browser users WebKit which is licenced under the LGPL: The WebKit Open Source Project - GNU Lesser General Public License
It's pretty clear that Tesla is not under compliance with the LGPL.
What you are arguing is that if someone sells me some open source software, and then I then redistribute it, I am able to claim ignorance and not comply with the GPL? That's like downloading songs over bittorrent and then telling the record company's lawyers to go after those other bittorrent users instead since they never gave you the license terms.
breser
AutoPilot Nostradamus
That's a fair point since they need to provide at least a copy of the license with BSD licenses.
Yup, they've got the same issue with WebKit. But it's harder to say that they're actually using WebKit. Pretty much every browser says it is Mozilla. So it's possible they're just using a browser rendering engine that is compatible with the features of WebKit. Not entirely likely, but possible. Maybe Tesla has explicitly said they're using WebKit. I don't recall though.
No he's saying if someone downloads some software on a flash drive. Then gives that flash drive to someone else and then that person gives it to you, then the person that handed you the flash drive is not obligated to comply with the license. He may very well be right. Because copyright law is about making copies. Passing around that flash drive doesn't create a new copy.
However, that's a very very narrow and difficult crack to fall into.
You're not looking at this in the right way. In this case, for the purpose of 17 USC 117, Tesla's supplier may be supplying the "machine" and Tesla may be the maintenance and repair company who - in order to reflash it - is temporarily copying the software for repair purposes.
You're not considering that Tesla may not be the one producing the Linux image that goes onto the media control unit. You're making an assumption that Tesla is copying /boot/vmlinuz to the filesystem, and you're not considering that instead, the supplier might offer binary firmware images to Tesla. Tesla may not have the source code to hand out, or Tesla may have a contractual agreement with its supplier not to disclose its source code, even if it does have it. And, as I've pointed out several times today, Tesla may not be the one doing the "copying" or "distributing" in the legal sense of those words.
The mobile phone environment is another example of this. AT&T takes a mobile phone with hardware and software provided by other vendors, installs its own apps on top of the base, and sells it. The suppliers to AT&T provide the open source notice to the consumer, not AT&T. (An example is Samsung, via opensource.samsung.com.) AT&T does not provide access to the source code and instead tells you to contact the manufacturer for information. Samsung publishes the open source information in its user manuals. If Tesla receives the base operating system from a supplier as part of the unit, then the supplier is on the hook for GPL licensing, not Tesla.
Now, all of that said, this is becoming a lot of rehash. I understand this is a strongly religious topic for some people. We may never know what the courts think about the license, because - as you say, breser - it seems pretty simple to just deal with it. Tesla may just put up a notice pointing at its supplier, or obtain a contract amendment, just to deal with the religious nature of the topic. That doesn't mean that they were out of compliance, of course, it just means they wanted to shut people up.
You're not considering that Tesla may not be the one producing the Linux image that goes onto the media control unit. You're making an assumption that Tesla is copying /boot/vmlinuz to the filesystem, and you're not considering that instead, the supplier might offer binary firmware images to Tesla. Tesla may not have the source code to hand out, or Tesla may have a contractual agreement with its supplier not to disclose its source code, even if it does have it. And, as I've pointed out several times today, Tesla may not be the one doing the "copying" or "distributing" in the legal sense of those words.
The mobile phone environment is another example of this. AT&T takes a mobile phone with hardware and software provided by other vendors, installs its own apps on top of the base, and sells it. The suppliers to AT&T provide the open source notice to the consumer, not AT&T. (An example is Samsung, via opensource.samsung.com.) AT&T does not provide access to the source code and instead tells you to contact the manufacturer for information. Samsung publishes the open source information in its user manuals. If Tesla receives the base operating system from a supplier as part of the unit, then the supplier is on the hook for GPL licensing, not Tesla.
Now, all of that said, this is becoming a lot of rehash. I understand this is a strongly religious topic for some people. We may never know what the courts think about the license, because - as you say, breser - it seems pretty simple to just deal with it. Tesla may just put up a notice pointing at its supplier, or obtain a contract amendment, just to deal with the religious nature of the topic. That doesn't mean that they were out of compliance, of course, it just means they wanted to shut people up.
breser
AutoPilot Nostradamus
We've talked about if Tesla is violating Open Source licenses. But I want to look at what Tesla is doing to comply with the Open Source licenses at current.
This is the copyright page in the current version of the manual (same as what's displayed on the 17" screen, and is known by the version stamping of 6.2_das_na_r21050326_en_us).
As you can see this includes a link to the URL:
http://www.teslamotors.com/opensource
Which ultimately redirects to:
https://www.teslamotors.com/about/legal#opensource
There is no Open Source anchor anyone on this page. In fact there's no mention of Open Source anywhere on this page.
It does provide privacy information, an email contact policy, their patent pledge, website terms of use, recall info, human rights and conflict minerals policy, and security vulnerability information.
But absolutely nothing about software licensing.
My guess is this should be included but it's been forgotten for some reason. Tesla can and should do better here.
This is the copyright page in the current version of the manual (same as what's displayed on the 17" screen, and is known by the version stamping of 6.2_das_na_r21050326_en_us).
As you can see this includes a link to the URL:
http://www.teslamotors.com/opensource
Which ultimately redirects to:
https://www.teslamotors.com/about/legal#opensource
There is no Open Source anchor anyone on this page. In fact there's no mention of Open Source anywhere on this page.
It does provide privacy information, an email contact policy, their patent pledge, website terms of use, recall info, human rights and conflict minerals policy, and security vulnerability information.
But absolutely nothing about software licensing.
My guess is this should be included but it's been forgotten for some reason. Tesla can and should do better here.
You, too, are making the assumption that Tesla has the full source code and control over that source used in the media control unit.
Let's talk about your hypothetical for a minute. You're the manufacturer of electric bicycles. You purchase - from Control Systems, Inc. - a speed control module which consists of a couple of hardware sensors and a control unit. Software for the control unit is provided to you in binary format by Control Systems, and you make available (to your customers) the tool and image provided by Control Systems to update the firmware when they fix bugs for you. But Control Systems has a nasty little secret - they dare to use emacs to run the speed sensor! In this case, it is not your responsibility for the breach, nor would you be held liable for GPL violations, for selling your bicycle with that control unit attached.
I haven't looked at the WebKit case, but it seems that it might be more applicable to the case since the browser does seem to be Tesla's direct code.
- - - Updated - - -
That's a good find. Perhaps they'll finish the page.
Last edited:
breser
AutoPilot Nostradamus
I consider exactly those scenarios. I said that the law would allow Tesla to copy only the exact version that was included on the hardware when shipped by the supplier (assuming the supplier is complying with the GPL and thus the version on the hardware when received by Tesla is licensed). The law doesn't permit Tesla to take a different version of the software and copy it on the hardware just because they are repairing it. That's the entirely purpose of the language in the law that I highlighted in my previous post.
It takes a remarkable amount of twisting of the language of that law that the case law you cited doesn't support to come to the conclusion you have. The company in the case law you cited repairing the machine was running the machines and inspecting the software and pulling out error codes to be able to know how to repair it. They were not putting new versions of the software on the hardware.
In order for Tesla to stay legal under the scenario you have presented Tesla would be locked into a single version of the kernel that they happened to ship when the car was new. Honestly, I find it difficult to believe that Tesla is going to such extremes just to avoid putting a little text up on their website.
You're jumping through a mighty amount of assumptions about what I'm assuming when I'm actually considering the scenarios you're describing.
We know that Tesla is using Tegra 2 and Tegra 3 systems. Linux for Tegra as provided by nVidia is located here:
Linux For Tegra Archive
nVidia is their supplier. nVidia is publishing the source code to the kernel. They also publish binaries.
The supplier can't prevent Tesla from disclosing the Linux Kernel source code. The supplier is obligated under the GPL to provide that. They are not allowed to place additional restrictions on that source code. Note the following from the GPL (emphasis mine):
From what I've heard about Tesla they are very inclined to do as much as they possible can do in house. The infotainment system is almost entirely custom produced boards for Tesla. I find it almost impossible to believe that Tesla is not doing their own copying. I can't imagine that they wouldn't be shipping images of the full filesystem that includes everything for the boot volume (including Tesla's proprietary user space software) for installation on the computers in the car as part of their production process. Even if the software is copied onto the hardware by some other supplier and thus Tesla is not technically copying it at the time of the production of the car, I believe that the update process that Tesla follows necessitates them making a copy.
There are two ways people get updates on their car.
1) Receive an over the air update initated and controlled by Tesla (by 3G or Wifi). Owners have zero control over when this download happens and as such I would argue that it is Tesla doing the downloading and thus creating the copy.
2) A Tesla employee hooks up a laptop to the car and copies the software from the laptop to the car. This is even a stronger case of Tesla making the copy.
Similar threads
