Hacker News Reader

Comment by matt4077 | Hacker News Reader

I think that argument may have used to make sense in the 90ies when open source was new and was trying to establish itself, mostly with a dream of "Linux on every desktop".

Now it has found its market and the ecosystem as a whole really couldn't give a damn if BMW is kind enough to use OSS or not.

View on HN

Respectfully, I don't think this is about 'kindness.' This is about BMW, a commercial entity, respecting the legal rights of the property creators as owners. The license agreement is clear, and certain actions must take place if BMW chooses to benefit from use of the software. BMW is free to NOT use the software if they feel these restrictions are too severe.

Or am I missing something?

I think they were trying to say that the OSS community at this point in time doesn't need BMW to be "kind" and use OSS to help OSS gain popularity. Especially not if they can't be bothered to comply with licenses.

the way I read its is that no, BMW is NOT legally required to release it as it is in a proprietary piece of HW, and releasing the code could thus cause harm to their business. and while they ARE using it for 'gain', no one can prove that they were HARMED or had a loss of income or even IP (outside of copyright) by their (BMW's) use of such as it is essentially 'free' in that no money or barter items were exchanged. They MAY have a copyright claim at best, but again, I am not a lawyer. That's just how I see it.

Is there a precedent to enforce GNU licensing outside of copyright infringement?

That's not how the GPL works. If it would be inconvenient for BMW to incorporate GPL software and properly comply with the license by providing source, then their only alternative is not to incorporate the GPL software. Full stop. Harm or proprietary hardware has no bearing on the rights granted by the GPL.

That is true in the real world if and only if there is someone willing to sue BMW and see it through to the end. Absent someone doing that I don't see how the GPL is actually enforceable. In some ways it is similar to what we have with surveillance and the NSA in US. While they are probably breaking the law the courts have been unwilling to force them to stop.

1. They're not "breaking the law" because copyright infringement is primarily a civil matter (recent changes nonwithstanding).

2. Your statement is essentially tautological because nothing in civil law is ever enforced without someone taking the initiative.

> 1. They're not "breaking the law" because copyright infringement is primarily a civil matter (recent changes notwithstanding).

They aren't committing a crime, they are breaking a law (copyright law). Civil laws are called "laws" for a reason.

》 That is true in the real world if and only if there is someone willing to sue BMW and see it through to the end. Absent someone doing that I don't see how the GPL is actually enforceable.

So... just like every other contract, ever? You can't have an enforceable agreement between civilians without courts. Anyone willfully making a derivative of GPL software explicitly agrees to that contract and as usual, courts are the arbiters. Yes someone needs to go to court.

Your reading is incorrect. BMW is distributing hardware and software, and is possibly in violation of the license agreement that allows them to use that software.

Their only possible defense is to assert that they are not using GPL'd software.

You are completely incorrect, this does involve copying something copyrighted and thus opens the possibility of infringement.

Violating GPL and refusing to make good (they always ask for just the code release first) can go very badly indeed for the violator, e.g. http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2010/08/court-...

If you are talking in practice - can someone sue BMW and force them to release the modified versions - I think you're right, but one can still get an injunction preventing them from distributing any more copies of the work. Which means no more cars with that firmware; not a happy prospect for BMW!

Only the original copyright holders can sue for violation of their copyright though -- an end user (BMW customer) has no recourse fafaik.

"the way I read its is that no, BMW is NOT legally required to release it as it is in a proprietary piece of HW, and releasing the code could thus cause harm to their business."

When in the hell did the "Release sources, unless it would do harm to your business" clause get added to the GPL?

"no one can prove that they were HARMED or had a loss of income or even IP"

Sure they can. It's their IP, and if BMW wanted to use it, they had to follow the license, or negotiate for a private license. They did neither, which very much would constitute harm.

"is essentially 'free' in that no money or barter items were exchanged."

The barter is that you would "pay it forward". BMW has not upheld their side of the bargain.

"They MAY have a copyright claim at best"

They're the ones who wrote the software; they're the ones who decide how it gets licensed. If that license is broken, then their copyright was violated.

"Is there a precedent to enforce GNU licensing outside of copyright infringement?"

Why would there need to be?

I don't really look at GPL too closely, since I do not code for a living, or make commercial products, but I have to say my superficial understanding of opensource and GPL was piqued by the statement from @jackhat above with the 'legal rights of the property creators as owners.' If I take this statement to mean that GPL is the mirror-image of proprietary license agreements in that it is not free to use, since the stipulation is that you must publish your source code as the cost, would my understanding be correct? I just tend towards MIT or BSD licensed software to avoid any potential issues or problems with my future endeavors.

Using GPL'd source as the basis of your work (this is, creating a derivate of a work licensed under the GPL), and then distributing that modified work, saddles the author with the responsibility of handing over the code upon user request. The GPL also prevents changing the license if you're not the original author.

You can never change the license of a work, you can only distribute your own changes under a difference license.

If you own all of the copyright over a work, or if the license explicitly allows sublicensing (BSD and MIT), you can change the license of a work (or a fork of the work).

The GPL is essentially pay-it-forward; any rights you receive must be passed along to anyone who gets a copy of the work (or of a derivative).

That means it's perfectly fine to take a GPL work and modify it without giving the source to anyone, as long as you also don't give binaries to anyone. And if you're distributing binaries privately with just a few people/companies, you also don't need to publish the source publicly, only to those few who got the binaries.

EDIT: Of course, you can't prevent those few from redistributing it publicly themselves.

(IANAL)

This brings up an interesting point; which BMW might try to make if this ever goes to court.

There have been times when device manufacturers (and car manufacturers) attempt to prevent device owners from modifying the code on their own devices. I think once folks tried to drag the DMCA into it. There's a lot of muddling up of the ownership waters there.

This may mean that the ownership of the binaries can be similarly challenged. Somehow. A point can be made that a binary living inside a phone (or car) I have bought has not been "given" to me (and thus the source code need not be given to me either).

Granted, it's rather convoluted logic, but then again, this isn't the first time stuff like this has happened.

Would be interesting to see how such an argument actually pans out.

If I take this statement to mean that GPL is the mirror-image of proprietary license agreements in that it is not free to use, since the stipulation is that you must publish your source code as the cost, would my understanding be correct?

No. Your latter assertion is correct: GPL code is not free as in beer. How you contort that into a "mirror-image of proprietary license" is your own interpretation, and requires a lot more elaboration on your part.

To put it in the most simplest terms: the GPL is mainly concerned with the freedom of the source code, not the freedom of the developer.

> To put it in the most simplest terms: the GPL is mainly concerned with the freedom of the source code, not the freedom of the developer.

Freedom of the users. Source code is not a person, it cannot have "freedom".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com