Canuck
Well-Known Member
Thanks. I appreciate your knowledge on this issue.
Do you have any idea why Linux and its copyright holders are not doing anything about it in relation to Tesla?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Thanks. I appreciate your knowledge on this issue.
Do you have any idea why Linux and its copyright holders are not doing anything about it in relation to Tesla?
At this point we're so wholly off topic, but ok, I'll bite...
It does matter, there are lots of different models that can apply and responsibilities/accountabilities are different for each of them. In some of them, Tesla has direct culpability for taking the actions mentioned in the license, while in others it may be responsible for only a pass-through message from its suppliers, or a jury might even find they don't "copy and distribute" the code.
Different ways Tesla can purchase their subsystems:
- Tesla can design its own hardware subsystem, contract with a supplier to build it, and roll its own Linux on top of it, maintaining it themselves. This has the highest level of accountability/responsibility, and definitely requires them to publish their source code changes under GPLv2 section 2.
- Tesla can purchase a packaged hardware subsystem from a vendor and roll its own Linux, modify the kernel directly, and maintain it themselves. Definitely requires them to publish their source code changes under GPLv2 section 2.
- Tesla can purchase a packaged hardware subsystem from a vendor and install an unmodified Linux distribution on it with Tesla's own user-space code on top. In this case, Tesla owns the relationship with the hardware manufacturer and the Linux supplier.
- Tesla can purchase a packaged hardware + software subsystem ("black box") from a subsystem vendor and layer only its user-mode code on top. In this case, Tesla owns the relationship with the solution supplier, and the solution supplier owns the relationship with the hardware manufacturer and the Linux supplier.
- Finally, Tesla can purchase a "black box" component that includes all hardware and software involved, without modification.
Now, the definition of "distribute" in the license may or may not apply to these varied models and it's likely a jury would have to decide that point if things went to court - the GPL (v2) does not define "distribute". Let's say for a second that nVidia provides a complete subsystem with Ubuntu installed on it to Tesla -- Tesla does nothing but apply the patches supplied by nVidia. Tesla could argue that nVidia is distributing the code and that it is not, and therefore nVidia is responsible for publishing the source code changes. Alternatively, copyright holders may argue that if Tesla passes through nVidia's updates, that it is indeed "copying and distributing" because it pushes a single update to multiple sold units and is responsible for meeting the conditions in the license (likely a pass-through of the URL to nVidia's open source page). Under certain definitions of "distribute" you could even charge that Wal-Mart or Jay's Garage IT, Inc. are "distributing" when they sell a product to a consumer or install & configure it for a client's IT infrastructure, but it would be silly to say that Wal-Mart should be responsible for distributing source code modifications made by Linksys or should be policing Linksys's obligations about open source in the manual.
No one here definitively *knows* Tesla's commercial relationship with the supplier of the CID units; if they did, they probably could not legally speak to it. There are a few members here who know the intimate details about how things are packaged and could then derive some guesses as to what the model is, but even that isn't assured. A jury might find that Tesla could roll a consolidated update consisting of its suppliers' passed-through updates and its own user-space updates without qualifying as a modification under the license.
I've worked with Linux since 0.95 - nearly 25 years now, and I've been running it in production since 0.99pl13r. I was the author of a few chunks of code that were present in the Linux kernel for a while but have since been deprecated and removed, on a platform unrelated to the platforms Tesla uses. In my day job, I have some responsibility for understanding the proper use of open source software and have sat through the multitude of meetings with lawyers where the topic was discussed.
I can tell you that many of the opinions offered on this topic have no foundation in the reality of law related to open source licenses, and some simply haven't been tested in case law. There is little settled case law, for a few different reasons. There are some opinions that are realistic (especially when the shades of gray are understood), but many that are not. Bottom line - this is an area where anyone could argue anything because there is no authoritative case law to go upon. Stallman would have Tesla dissolved and all its assets given to the people to be distributed among them; others see no problem.
My opinion is that it would be simple for Tesla to either a) pass through notices or point to its suppliers' web sites if it is not directly responsible for modifying GPL code, or b) publish its own modifications. Such changes would be inconsequential, no one is going to be able to glean any competitive or engineering information from them, and it would shut up the people that insist on harping on the topic. Tesla has an "open source" section on one of their legal pages, but it contained nothing last time I looked.
However, those who harp on it need to ask themselves why they're harping upon the topic. It could be that a) they're trying to be a mini-clone of RMS and espouse complete Marxism throughout society; b) they're trying to glean some type of super-special engineering knowledge about Tesla by looking at a modified interrupt map on a COTS subsystem, which won't be there; or, c) they want to help put teeth behind the open source movement and argue the slippery slope that even if inconsequential edits are made to a static interrupt map in the code, they would be likely to withhold major innovations, too, and that would be bad for a free-as-beer world.
The latter is where everyone who argues the point will claim to be, but the efficacy of the argument is minimal at best. If Tesla gets its subsystem from another vendor who maintains the software, what good does bashing Tesla about it do?
(Just as a side note - on this matter, Tesla simply passes through more supplier code than you might think. When I had a cellular problem with service coverage by a "partner" of AT&T, Tesla couldn't help me -- they had to work with the code supplier to fix the roaming issue in the system. Likewise, when I experienced a problem with the navigation system, the problem had to be addressed by Navigon and not Tesla.)
Bottom line: you don't know the commercial arrangements. Let those who have standing in the matter take up the issue (and no, customers don't have standing to sue Tesla over it, only the copyright holders do). I have yet to see any of the threatened lawsuits come to any fruition. And if someone with proper standing came to Tesla, I'm sure there would be a confidential agreement to avoid litigation and the open source section of Tesla's site would go up. Heck, that might happen even without a threat of litigation, if Tesla hires a new software executive who is more concerned about it. Only a few people will know the real reason that happens, and it'll be bound by non-disclosure - no one will know the exact trigger.
Last edited:
For what it's worth, you're wrong. You might want to look up who you're talking about. Dirk's not some crazy blowhard who is just here to BS you. I'm sure I'm considered a blowhard by some, but I don't do it for my own sake and I don't BS.
To your overall point, I agree that the issue isn't clear legally, and there is little case law. As a result, you have a bunch of armchair lawyers on a car forum giving their own opinions.
In my day job, I've been smart enough to stay out of it and let our lawyers give me the opinions. Then we engineer accordingly.
What you saw me spell out above is my understanding as lawyers have interpreted the issues for me. And since lawyers can even differ without case law for guidance, I point everyone back to my question: what's the point? Those who have standing will address any deficiencies if they believe they're being taken advantage of. Tesla and those aggrieved parties will reach some sort of conclusion, whether by settlement or by establishing case law precedent. Then all parties with standing will have resolution -- they may not be happy, but there will be resolution of their issue.
There will still be armchair lawyers who want to complain, but we can't fix those.
Last edited:
I read all the pages, but I'm still wondering how we have stayed on the GPL license issue for so long. It's been discussed elsewhere and doesn't really need to be here. Why don't you guys PM each other your LinkedIn pages and get it over with. We don't really need another Donald Trump, my schlong is bigger than yours discussion here.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
I'm not going to attempt to comment on any of the linux, GPL, etc. technical stuff.
But I will say that you're off the mark, and in my opinion also out of line to jump in here as a relatively new member who has been around a few months, suggesting that one of the most respected posters here who has been posting and helping people for years is "fibbing a bit."
Go ahead and question the points he is making if they are not valid, but please don't question his honesty.
I'm good with it all moving to the original GPL thread, but this will be the fifth time it's rehashed there, so...
This just proves that threads like this become utter train wrecks and aren't very productive. They set up crazy David-vs-Goliath holy wars.
Article on the front page of Ars Technica:
Man hacks Tesla firmware, finds new model, has car remotely downgraded | Ars Technica
Man hacks Tesla firmware, finds new model, has car remotely downgraded | Ars Technica
Canuck
Well-Known Member
It seems to me that dirkhh quoted the relevant section. He quoted the actual licence. You quoted commentary.
I also don't understand why you have such harsh words for him. I found his posts to be very informative.
It's clear to me that the state of the law on enforcement of the GPL is a very grey area (understatement!) and any lawsuit in this area would make for a very hard case and as such may not even mean much when it comes to precedent value.
I'd say that things are a bit clearer as FSF tried to lock some things down. However, there is still not a legal definition of what "distribute" means, and one can read the GPLv3 as requiring Wal-Mart to pass down source code offers and/or host source code and/or police GPLv3 compliance for products it sells that are based on GPLv3, which is silly. They tried to define "convey" as "any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying". By that definition, a retailer allows end consumers to "receive copies", therefore it "conveys"... but I hope that would be laughed out of court.
The distinction, I think, is that Wal-Mart doesn't *make* copies that consumers "receive". And if Tesla doesn't modify anything it gets from its vendor and merely repackages updates, is it required to do anything?
In the interest of full disclosure: I'm not a big fan of GPLv3 at all.
And I suppose you already know the answer to whether they use something that is licensed under GPLv3.
Last edited:
And I suppose you already know the answer to whether they use something that is licensed under GPLv3.
Of course, but I'm admittedly just instigating here. lol. I'm not going to say either way because I personally couldn't really care less about this particular issue. Maybe if it were something AGPL I'd care a little more, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Even if it turns out that Tesla is required to distribute source code for GPL stuff.... so what? It's not like you can't download that GPL stuff from anywhere else already. Even if Tesla modified the source at all, it's not going to give anything useful away if they have to release it. They're in no way obligated to release their own software... you know, the stuff that actually makes it a Tesla.
So seems like much ado about nothing with very little to gain even with a landslide win for OSS on the matter. At best we'd probably get a few links to some random GPL'd stuff that you can already download all over the web anyway. I believe they should credit these folks, sure, but I'm not going to get up in arms about it.
Joseph Torbati
Former Vendor
On a side note... I heard that once sky net takes over were all doomed to hearing "ill be back" by self parking Tesla that actually don't come back and... Make you walk.
dirkhh
Middle-aged Member
Tesla has been contacted several times, on several levels. The people driving the process prefer to start with conversations, not with lawsuits. But the results so far are not promising.
Don't get me wrong, I think they should certainly make a best effort to comply with the licenses for the software they're utilizing, and I don't even think it would be very much effort at all on their part to do so. But that's my point, it's really just not a huge issue to me because it's just not a huge deal. Quite literally no one has anything to gain or lose by Tesla's compliance or non-compliance on this matter. It's not like Tesla putting up some links to GPL code is all of a sudden going to make it possible to do things with the car that we couldn't before. It's not like the GPL software devs are going to get a payday out of it. It's just really a non-issue to me. Eventually Tesla will comply and post the links on an obscure page somewhere and that will be that... and no one will care.
Tesla definitely has more important things to do than to make a link page of open source software you can already find using Google in 3 seconds. I mean, really, just telling it how it is.
dirkhh
Middle-aged Member
So what does one respond to this?
I know what. Calmly walk away.
You, Sir, clearly know a lot more about all these things than any of us. I'm sure you have been heard as an expert on these topics in court and have given dozens of keynotes about this at various conferences over the past two decades. I'm certain that you have been close friends with many of the key developers of open source software since the 90s (including those filing these fun lawsuits), were in the room when the term "open source" was coined, and have considered Linus your best friend for more than two decades; certainly you have had his daughters over to babysit your daughters many times, work out with his wife a couple of times a week and are looking forward to your next dive trip with him in a couple of weeks before you are on stage with him again for another fun little keynote.
I applaud your employer for their brilliant choice in expert and will withdraw from further participation in this argument.
The stage is yours. Enlighten your curious audience.
As one of those that started the derailing of the thread here the point wasnt really if Tesla is bad or not in terms of OSS-licenses etc..
It was a simple way of pointing out that some die hard Tesla supporters were crying at wk057 sayin "you are messing with or stealing from Teslas licensed software"<-not at all a direct quote, but at the same time ignoring the "controversy" regarding accusations of Tesla ignoring such licenses themselves
To me that is just silly. And as mentioned I dont really care about what wk057 is doing in terms of legality in this and most other cases here, and I really dont care about Teslas use of OSS either to be honest. I just get irritated by those who apply one standard to Tesla and a completely different standard for those that dont think Tesla does everything 100% correct all the time. And we all know that wk057 is a magnet on this set of users here
I know he can defend himself, but I sometimes feel obliged to field an opposite view when the blame-train is set in motion towards him....
dirkhh
Middle-aged Member
The people writing that software disagree, Jason. They take this "license" issue fairly seriously and they politely ask that if you build your business (or your car) based on the software they wrote, you please comply with their license. It's completely irrelevant if the result of that allows you to do anything useful. You use the software. You need to follow the terms under which it was given to you.
Similar threads
