
On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 06:04:12PM +1100, Colin Fee wrote:
On 4 Mar 2016 4:27 pm, "Russell Coker" <russell@coker.com.au> wrote: j> >
On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 03:52:30 PM Colin Fee via luv-talk wrote:
Or is it a case of BMW compiling binaries using private modifications that are instlled into the cars for use but not actually distributing the software, if the usage within their cars is not counted as distribution.
Usage in cars they own is not distribution. It becomes distribution when they sell any of those cars.
Interesting point. Is there an expectation amongst your typical car buyer that you could have access to the underlying software?
why is it that so many people try to ignorantly create loopholes in the GPL (and excuses for corporate bad behavior) that DO NOT and CAN NOT exist? The GPL isn't that hard to understand - it's very straight-forward and simple, all you have to do is read it. if you haven't read it, then at least try to refrain from commenting on it. it does not matter in the slightest whether there is or is not such an expectation. the fact is that if they include GPL-ed binaries when they sell a car, they are distributing the software **exactly** the same as if the GPL-ed binaries were embedded in a router or mp3 player or mobile phone or any other device. the fact of distribution is the important criteria, not the kind of device it is distributed within and not the expectations of some or even most consumers. GPL-ed code is subject to copyright and by default they have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to distribute the code. The GPL allows them to distribute as long as they comply with certain conditions (including providing source code either WITH the binaries or by accompanying it with a written offer to give the source code to **ANY THIRD PARTY** on request). If they do not comply with those conditions, then they can not distribute the code AT ALL. The GPL isn't what prevents them from doing so, copyright law does. that's why the GPL is often called copyleft and considered to be a "neat hack" on the copyright system. it uses copyright law to enforce free software principles and practice rather than proprietary lock-down.
In a similar vein we bought new Siemens ovens over Christmas and amongst the literature was a GPL licence issued by Texas Instruments for the touch menu software. Not sure I'd want access with a view to changing and reinstalling it.
it doesn't matter whether you want to or not - the fact is that you are entitled to the source code. and if they didn't provide the source along with the binary then anyone else in the world is entitled to request (demand, actually, but it doesn't hurt to be polite) it from them (for a price no more than the actual cost of duplication) for three years from the most recent date of distribution.
Same goes for the car software. I guess the point of the article is more about the spirit of the GPL. If you're not willing to distribute the source, don't use that licence.
it's not their code that's being discussed. if it was their code, they could do whatever they want with it, including distribute it under both GPL and proprietary licenses....might be silly to do so, but there's no legal reason why they can't. when it comes to other people's GPL-licensed code, though, they have no choice. Their only options are to distribute under the terms of the GPL, to negotiate a different license with the author(s)/copyright-holder(s), or not distribute it at all. there is no other option for them. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>