BMW and the GPL

https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2016/03/bmw-and-the-gpl/

by edent • 10 years ago

134 43 10 years ago

nailer• 10 years ago

Here's the thing - contacting customer services like that was entirely the wrong approach. Customer services aren't trained for the 0.001% of people who might be interested in an esoteric matter of legal licensing. Crying foul because a minimum wage rep didn't understand an obscure technical reference is counter productive.

Damn straight. So provided opensource@bmw.com actually respond this should be sorted out: kudos for the author for being forthright about how this could have been handled better.

cJ0th• 10 years ago

Or just push it on git hub once and be done with it for good.

hannob• 10 years ago

Customer services aren't trained for the 0.001% of people who might be interested in an esoteric matter of legal licensing.

Here's where I'd like to disagree. Of course customer service doesn't have to know about those esoteric issues. But customer service should notice when a request comes that's not their department. And if that's the case they should redirect it to someone who knows better.

This is not the personal fault of the person sitting at the customer service, but the structure in a company. They should be able to handle that.

coldpie2• 10 years ago

I think you're underestimating the volume of stupid-and-crazy shit that CS reps have to deal with every day. Sorting out stupid-and-crazy from legitimate-but-not-my-department would be several full time jobs in itself.

jrcii• 10 years ago

You've touched on a larger issue that occurs to me often. Though your point is valid, my response to a company making the argument would be, "too bad." /They're/ the ones making billions in revenue by voluntarily accepting a business relationship with millions of customers. If you want the revenue from those millions of relationships, it's also your responsibility to manage your side of the bargain with those millions of relationships, that includes your legal (and many other) responsibilities. Is scaling to keep up with your responsibilities to millions of customers easy? No. However that's not the customer's problem.

jordigh3• 10 years ago

As far as I know, the original suggestion that there was a possible GPL problem was raised by Duncan Bayne on Lobsters. After his story got attention, BMW got back to him.[1]

Without making a big show of this, it would have been much more difficult to get BMW's attention. Duncan tried to contact legal but was refused.

The point of GPL compliance isn't to sue or to shame, but just that: to bring people to compliance. Even in the beginning of the GPL rms said to Eben, "I have a rule. You must never let a request for damages interfere with a settlement for compliance."[2] Legal action is an absolute last resort, usually when years of friendly negotiations fail. All GPL lawsuits I know of only took place after years of attempts to get compliance failed. Duncan just wanted compliance, not legal action.

---

[1] https://lobste.rs/s/uaa4db/bmw_refuses_to_abide_by_terms_of_...

[2] http://www.geof.net/research/2006/moglen-notes

lmm8• 10 years ago

What would have happened if, instead of raising it on lobsters, Bayne had emailed the address in the manual? (And if he doesn't own a BMW (or a written offer in accordance with the license), he's not in any position to be asking for the source code). Most likely he'd've received the source and there would've been no issue. The outrage-storm was extremely premature.

jordigh3• 10 years ago

he's not in any position to be asking for the source code

People keep repeating this, but I'm pretty convinced that clause 3b of GPLv2 says that the source code must be given to any third party, since 3a and 3c do not apply:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11218324

DannyBee7• 10 years ago

He is in a position to be asking for source code. BMW did not " a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, "

or do something reasonably similar ( point people to the source code site from their car, etc). Instead, they made a written offer. Written offers must be valid to any third party. Not just to people you give binaries to:

"b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, ... a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code"

(emph mine).

FireBeyond2• 10 years ago

"Duncan tried to contact legal but was refused."

That's a little bit of a stretch of the scenario.

If I want to contact the Legal department of a multinational firm on a -legal matter- related to contract law and software licensing, I (or my lawyers) send a -letter- or at least email to the legal department.

I -don't- call Tier 1 Customer Tech Support for the vehicle, demand to be put through to legal, run off to the web and talk about how BMW stonewalled me.

paulddraper2• 10 years ago

I can almost never find that info.

jordigh3• 10 years ago

It's entirely reasonable for BMW to make this contact information easily available. BMW isn't a hapless victim here; they're a giant multinational conglomerate. They can afford to make it easy to find source code, and customer reps should know what to point to.

This shouldn't even require lawyers. The customer reps should be trained to point out where the source code is.

whocansay• 10 years ago

It was on Hacker News at the same time.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11214992

btilly• 10 years ago

The original article said that he was pointed to a website where you could put in a VIN and get source code.

The GPL says that you must present a written offer executable by anyone. As long as their written offer describes how to get the software, and it works, they are fine. There is no requirement that they give the written offer to any random stranger who asks.

Furthermore the requirement for a VIN is very reasonable. The software is constantly changing, and without the VIN, how do they know what version to give you?

It was obvious at the start the BMW was in compliance. There was no actual story. Just a jerk who thought he was defending free software who was rude and managed to get a bunch of knee-jerk responses from the internet.

So what has been accomplished? We have "gotten BMW's attention", and wasted a bunch of people's time to verify that they were in compliance from the start. (Which I figured out from the original story, even if the person writing it didn't understand the GPL well enough to think it through.)

edent3• 10 years ago

Just to clarify. After entering the VIN, you get the compiled firmware ready to flash.

There are no instructions on that page (or anywhere I could find on the BMW site) for how to get the source.

I've emailed the address in the license file, but I've not yet had a response.

merb• 10 years ago

Besides all of that: As already said BMW only needs to give you the source code if you are a car owner. If the car owner then puts the source code online it's fine.

DannyBee7• 10 years ago

This is not right. If they put it online and point you at it, at the time they ship, that's fine. Otherwise, it's going to be looked at as a written offer. In this case, it's a 100% clear written offer.

Written offers must be valid to all third parties.

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

mugsie• 10 years ago

This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer.

So you still need to be in possession of the binaries. it is not any 3rd party, it is any third party who has possession of the binaries.

rubinlinux• 10 years ago

Whisper systems releases source code. BMW runs whisper systems OS. Where is the rub!?

mankash666• 10 years ago

Lesson learned - don't touch GPLed software even with a long stick. Time to make FreeBSD gain mindshare instead of accepting GPLed linux which does the same thing!

BMW and the GPL

Related Stories