Hacker News Reader

Comment by strictnein | Hacker News Reader

I'm confused here. Where is the evidence that they've modified GPL'd software, which they are then distributing, and are refusing to distribute the source code for their modifications?

View on HN

> Where is the evidence that they've modified GPL'd software

There's a Linux kernel and systemd in the 'i3'. See the links in the first few sentences of the article.

> which they are then distributing

BMW is a Bayerische Motor Work, a car company that distributes cars

> and are refusing to distribute the source code for their modifications?

The letters from BMW to the people asking for a copy of the source, stating they are refusing to distribute the source code for their modifications, linked to in the article.

I read that, but isn't this is the lowest type of "violation" there is? People are just wanting them to host the source code that is already available in about a billion locations then?

My question still stands, is there evidence that they're modifying GPL'd code and then not distributing that code?

I think if they're running unmodified code, they could just say "we are running X version Y with no modifications" and link to the upstream and be done with it. Which could be the case.

Or they have modified it and are refusing to release the source with their modifications. But they haven't stated the former.

Technically they don't need to give you the code unless you own that model of car. There's no requirement in the GPL that the code has to be shared to the whole world/everyone. It only needs to be provided to the person that has bought the vehicle which includes said software in compiled form.

This is not correct. They need to provide the offer for source to anyone they provide the binaries to (e.g. customers) but the offer has to be valid for anyone that gets a hold of it[1].

[1]http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#WhatDoesWrittenO...

I think I didn't expand my comment enough. In this context (of software running a car), the manufacturer needs to provide a way of getting the GPL'd source code to anyone that owns a vehicle with the relevant binary running in the car.

Basically you don't lose your GPL software right if you've bought the car from someone else other than the manufacturer.

I'm pretty certain they don't distribute source code with cars though, so seeing as the author didn't say "I don't own the car" - and they didn't ask - I think that's moot.

Once they give a copy to one owner, that owner can distribute it publicly.

This is only allowed under GPLv3, iiuc. Under GPLv2, you are obliged to distribute (host) the sources yourself even if it's an unmodified upstream version.

A very important part of the obligations under the GPL is to make the recipient aware that they have a right to the source code and that they are allowed to modify it and redistribute it, whether you have modified it or not.

evidence that they've modified, not afaict. But refusing to give up the GPL'd code, even if stock, is a violation. And there are no sizes to license violations.

There's evidence where?

And I know there aren't in theory different types of violations, but I think we all understand that there are different types in practice.

Not like you think. It's not like this is a a crime, but a small one, so a judge can say "Oh, then a small fine is warranted."

This is a license and if BMW doesn't comply 100% with the license their right to use the copyrighted code is entirely revoked.

I'd say it's about the highest form of violation. if someone says your copylefted code now belongs to them, and you don't sue them for relief, it becomes their property under law, and you lose your claim to copyleft in the first place.

You do not need to modify a copyrighted work in order to create a derivative. A music video for often use unmodified songs, but the combination of music and moving images still counts as a derivative work that require additional permissions from the copyright holder.

If not, I'm not certain that waivers their obligation to distribute the source code, at least when requested. In which case they could just link to Linux' own website.

Are you confusing source-code with machine-code?

GPL is concerned with source-code.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html

> object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

If someone modifies GPL source-code and published the executable, they must publish the additional source-code.

Your quoted section only speaks of unmodified machine-code created from GPLed source-code.

If I understand correctly, all you have to do is add gplCode + yourCode, no modification to gplCode, and that obligates you to a) distribute your source, and b) license your source as gpl.

If you need to link your code against some GPL code, then your code is GPL. But in most cases, a program that runs in a Linux environment doesn't need to link against any GPL libraries.

Because of this, libraries are frequently licensed under the Lesser GPL instead, which does permit linking without causing the resultant work from becoming GPL'ed itself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_Lice...

As you point out, linking code against GPL'ed code or libraries essentially merges them and makes the end result GPL'ed as well.

Not sure if this was the key part of your question, but they don't need to have modified it, they only need to have distributed it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com