Just to clarify – there are 108 distinct licenses used. So apart from Apache, BSD, GPL v2, GPL v3, LGPL, there are 103 _different_ license terms used.
IP law, as currently used, is something really overcomplicated.
IP law, as currently used, is something really overcomplicated.
There is no [AL]?GPLv3 in those cars, it would be impossible to comply with the license terms.
Most car manufacturers are very hesitant to give users access to swap out their car's software, often for warranty and safety reasons.
Why would there be a special warranty or safety concern replacing the software that control the break, but no warranty or safety concern replacing the physical breaks with custom ones?
My point was that since the burden is on the manufacturer to prove that they're denying a warranty claim due to a user's negligence or damage, manufacturers hate users modifying control software.
It's a lot easier to make a software change, damage a car, and reverse the change than it is to make a physical change, damage the car, and swap the part back before taking the part back to the dealer.
Plus, errors in software are much harder to spot. If I get a brake caliper bracket with a giant crack in it, I see the issue while I'm installing it and can send it back. If I download BillyJoe's Flash V1.65, I have to go to a lot more work to figure out if it's going to hurt me.
However, its true that you might have a easier time to see a giant crack, but would you see material fatigue? would you see improper engineered breaks? Would you notice if instead of using steel in a critical point, they happened to use a more weaker metal like aluminum?
I guess the big difference is in user behavior. No one would go and buy BillyJoe's breaks from some alleyway, especially if it looked like they manufactured the stuff out of paste. However, some people might happily install breaks from an email attachment, sent by fishy Joes Nigeria email service. Especially if it said "Cheep UpGrade to the car braks!".
Im not sure if that should matter in the long run. It shouldn't require that government create a new law, like a Motor Vehicle Owners' Right to Repair software Act.
US car manufacturers are legally forced to provide documentation so car owners can repair their car and replace parts. If a car owner want to change or replace the car's breaks, they are legally allowed to do so. Why should it matter that the software that then controls the break is made of 1 and 0 and not of steel and plastic?
Do we really need a Motor Vehicle Owners' Right to Repair software Act? Do we need one more law that says "we got that one previous act, lets copy paste that one and add the word "software" to it".
Why should federal regulators differential between someone installing custom physical breaks on your car, or someone installing custom software that controls the breaks. Whats the difference?