Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Model S' started by rdrcrmatt, Dec 2, 2014.
Oh not again! Neroden is correct: IF Telsa isn't distributing the GPL License itself and any code under it (and no one to date has reported seeing any such thing), THEN Tesla will lose their license to distribute the software according to the GPL, and THUS infringe on the copyrights of the copyright holders. HOWEVER Neroden has no rights to make this claim, being that he is not one of the copyright holders.
Those who wish can make a donation to the Free Software Foundation or the Software Freedom Conservancy. Perhaps with more funding they can persuade more companies to comply.
they don't need to distribute the code if there hasn't been any changes to the source. all they need to do is make a clickable link somewhere to the license to satisfy the requirements (which can easily be pushed in a simple software upgrade). IF they make changes to the source, they must be made public (aka like publishing the changes to github). it's as simple as that.
Have you read the Courts decisions on the issue of who owns Linux and alleged copyright violations?
Linux is free, as jury rules for Novell in SCO Unix copyright case
If it's free, can you really place copyright provisions, such as the ones you've put in your post above, on it? If so, how? Please support your position by reference to the law, not to what people or groups say you must do. Those are two very different things, as I trust you can appreciate.
Not quite. According to the GPL even if they don't change the code they must still provide a copy of the GPL itself (from section 1), and according to Section 3:
So, while yes a link on their webpage to their upstream provider (Nvidia most likely) will should fulfill section 3c (assuming no changes from section 2), they still need to provide a copy of the GPL AND a this link, neither of which they seem to be doing.
Who will sue for "breaching" that clause? There's no loss of profits, no damage to reputation, etc. What remedy is the Plaintiff seeking from the civil courts (after you tell me the name of the Plaintiff)? If the product is free to use, what is the consideration for those contractual terms?
The USL v. BSDi case had shown that the Unix copyrights are weak and unenforceable.
Do we really think Tesla has hired lawyers who have no idea of the case-law in this area?
Most likely no one. The terms of the GPL are a very low price to "pay" for use of an amazing suite of software. Just because no one is gonna sue you over it doesn't make it right to disregard the terms. It's an honor system, and honorable people and companies meet their obligations without needing someone to bring a law suit to make them.
What does the Unix copyright mess have to do with Linux and the GPL? Have we learned nothing from the SCO days?
My conclusion from this discussion:
a) Can a claim successfully be brought against Tesla regarding open sourcing their mods to the linux kernel? Probably not.
B) Would Tesla be "in the wrong" for improperly withholding source code IF they modified the kernel? Absolutely. In answering that specific question, the legal precedent is irrelevant. I believe (possibly incorrectly) that is what others are trying to get at.
You're badly misunderstanding that article. SCO was claiming that Linux was a copyright derivative of Unix and sued IBM for copyright infringement. SCO claimed to own Unix through some business transactions it had made with the prior owners. Novell ended up owning the prior owners. Novell claimed they still owned Unix. Ultimately, Novell won in court (what that article is about) and Novell refuses to press a copyright claim against users of Linux over any similarities to the Unix code base. If Linux is a derivative of Unix is still an open question, but now moot point since the owner of Unix isn't interested in pressing the issue.
SCO's end game was to try and demand licensing agreements with Linux users (they actually started selling them). Thus making the use of Linux require a fee. Since Novell won and refused to require this licensing fee, Linux is free (as in beer and as in liberty).
Even if you assume that your interpretation of the article is correct and that there are portions of Linux that are derived from Unix and therefore are not subject to the GPL, that does not mean that all of the Linux kernel is in that state. There are many pieces that are certainly not derived from other code. It is impossible to have a functional kernel without at least some of these non-derived components (what SCO claimed was derived was a very tiny portion of some public interfaces).
To date the GPL has never been tested in court specifically. The only open source license that has was the Artistic License, which was horribly drafted in comparison to the GPL and it withstood a challenge. So if you want references to the law with respect to Linux or the GPL, you're not going to find them.
Every time a GPL violation comes up and is pressed the violating party always settles by simply complying with the license. It's generally very easy for them to comply with, especially if they've made no custom modifications to the kernel. The cost of challenging the GPL is generally going to be many times the cost of simply complying, never mind the damage to the reputation of the organization that challenged an open source license. Generally the organizations that could afford to challenge the GPL simply don't because of that reputation situation.
Ok, so the down and dirty update.
Most has been said already, car got picked up, loaner dropped off in extremely quick fashion. They had my car for about 1 1/2 weeks. In that time, drivetrain was replaced. This has completely eliminated the clunk. at least 95% of it. the last 5% will always exist due to gear slack and is normal.
The loss of control and abs, steering, traction etc.. is tied in with the ABS system. They could only find the logs the one time it happened. Engeenering was very proactive on this safety issue and had a number of components actively replaced with a newer version.
Key not in car issue has not been fully remedied, however, mitigated greatly. They replaced and relocated some modules, body control modules according to what I understand, this has reduced my key not in vehicle issue by about 90%. I find this very very acceptable. Modules were replaced with latest available, after some testing with the loaner I had. Their appears to be interference in my area. A Number of TSB's have been applied as well, and other hardware changes and adjustments.
I will now say my car drives as good or better then it did when originally delivered. I am very happy and very satisfied with the service and response times. I still do not like the idea of not being able to "service" my own vehicle and get parts and what not.
Now, for the only bad thing so far.... One of my headlights went out last night, I'm 300 miles from service center... took a hour on the side of the road to convince a jackass cop that changing the headlight isnt a 5 minute project and that I need tools to pop out all the clips and what not to remove the liner in the wheel well to get at the bulb..... He let me off with a warning....so thats todays project in the rain.
Fyi the xenon headlights are a completely sealed unit and impossible to repair or replace individual bulbs. A new headlight unit is required and it costs about $1500 each...it's something only Tesla can do (aka swap entire headlight unit, since they cannot repair either).
Thankfully, I'm one of the few thousand that have the Halogens :-D
I did not end up fixing it, was raining too hard this morning, and without removing the wheel (Dont have the tools for that here) I gave up. Called highland park asking the best method, and they got a appointment for me to come in Monday. Since I will be driving past both on the way to and from Chicago to go to the Chinese Consulate (and most likely will be stuck their most of the day, as China doesnt allow Mail In's for Visa's), I will be stopping at Highland anyways to Supercharge to get home, so they will do it then.
I will ask to watch so I know exactly for the future, and make a How-To video on it. I also have a order in for LED Headlight "Bulbs", so It will be nice to know once those arrive so I can more easially swap those in myself rather then "Learn as I go".
Which would hopefully be covered fully by the service plan under "replacement parts." If brake pads are included I don't see why auxiliary lights would not.
Wait a minute, you can't replace the Xenon bulb in the Model S headlight? That's crazy!
Makes for a high cost of repair when these cars are 10 years old. Will you be able to go to autozone/pep boys/oreilys/etc to grab a part? Will you be able to buy it on Amazon? Or will it be a Tesla only part with a 4 figure price tag even when your Model S is well into the used car cycle.
im happy that islandbay has mostly resolved his issue but....
yea, not being allowed to coordinate his own repairs, is def an issue, and will increasingly be more of an issue as more teslas are sold, and these rip off repair shops proliferate.
and my silly physical car key turns on my car100% of the time. 90% is...pretty bad.
and yes, signing an NDA comes off as real shady. not necessarily referring to you, but for any car manufacturer to do that (let alone tesla), for their own mistakes...yikes.
You mis-understood. It's not that the key works 90% of the time, the number of times I get the error has DECREASED by 90%. I'm at over 99% of the time it works first time no issue now.
I wont comment on the NDA accept that I believe you are mis-understanding that as well.
I think the Xenon bulbs are replaceable. I recall a conversation with artsci where he told me about replacing the xenon lamp with a different color temperature bulb he had purchased. Perhaps artsci can provide further info.
I believe Porsche does that too. NDA is standard fare so other people don't have unrealistic expectations when they make an exceptional deal. Tesla has enough complaining about unfairness as it is.
I have read this entire thread and my conclusions are as follows:-
1. Tesla have looked after IslandBayy (and many others it seems) judging by the good will shown. This reassures me that I am doing the right thing as far as my own pending order is concerned. The NDA is not our concern - that is a matter between Tesla and IslandBayy. He cannot say any more so it is possibly best not to ask.
2. Personally, I have no interest in fixing my Model S (or any other car for that matter). I will sell the car before its warranty expires so the issue of the cost of parts should not affect me. It would be my view that the Model S is not an ideal car to run outside of warranty as the costs of parts and labour are unknown and possibly prohibitive currently. If people are considering keeping the car long term, they need to assess the risks carefully.
3. I am amazed at the mileage that some of you do. It is a testament to the Model S that many of you have managed to do these miles with so few problems (again reassuring). For people doing such high mileages, the savings in fuel must be enormous but you would need to offset these savings against your future maintenance costs. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
4. The restrictions over selling parts to third parties must have a lot to do with Tesla's relative inexperience as a car manufacturer and the lack of third party understanding of the Model S. So much of it is unique and there is simply not enough knowledge out there about the car as there would be with other mainstream manufacturers. Inevitably, Tesla will eventually allow the selling of parts to third parties but at this stage I can understand it must be a very worrying prospect for them. Given the litigious nature of the World today, you can understand their reticence to open this can of worms.