Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Anyone want to get the source code for the Linux (etc.) in your car?

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.

neroden

Model S Owner and Frustrated Tesla Fan
Apr 25, 2011
14,676
63,892
Ithaca, NY, USA
I'm asking this of anyone who's received delivery.

Tesla is legally required to provide the source code, or a written offer to provide source code, for the GPL-licenced components of the firmware. As you all know, Tesla has not done so. (Correct me if I'm wrong, of course --)

I can put you in contact with the people who have the power make sure that Tesla obeys its legal commitments, and I would like to do so.

Please contact me if you would like to assist. You will mostly be searching your documents to verify whether Tesla gave you source code or an offer to produce source code.

If nobody else volunteers, I'll be making sure Tesla obeys its legal commitments when I get my car. But it would be better to have someone who's received a car early do this. The fewer cars which Tesla has ships in violation of copyright law, the better for Tesla Motors.

Thank you.
 
Dude. Seriously? Do you not think Tesla already has enough issues at the moment, between, you know, trying to make the damn cars to begin with, no doubt having to sue their suppliers for breach of contract to deliver quality parts, and the god awful NADA lawsuits in 4 states???

I'm all for free software believe me, and in that I do mean free as in liberty, not free as in beer, but please. Just. Stop.

Besides which, it's unlikely they made any changes to the kernel or GNU user space programs. Anything proprietary they built as separate programs they have no obligation to release - this no doubt is the case with their car control systems. So all your efforts would likely result in is a plain vanilla copy of a standard distro. Woopdie friggin do.
 
This movement (as small as it is) reminds me of the ADA lawsuit abuse that's going on. There are some who get their kicks on the power trip, with zero effect. Tesla isn't the abuser here; while Stallman's rather eccentric and extreme views would have you believe that every single piece of software in the world should have source code available, economic reality simply doesn't permit that.

As EA said, it's very highly unlikely that Tesla developed their own code as modifications to existing GPL pieces that would require them to disclose the meat of the car's code. Instead, as EA said, you'll get a copy of Linux 2.x or 3.x kernel code perhaps with a slight modification that allows them to hook their own (non-GPL). You'll get a copy of the source code to GNU utilities (woo!) that are already available from thousands of mirrors around the globe.

...and in the end, all the posturing and noise-making will be unproductive heat, producing less than a single lumen of the light of productivity.
 
I agree with neroden d that they should release it, but I think this is not the time.

I'm a open source guy, I work daily on multiple GPLv2 projects and I think that every company should meet it's legal requirements. Cut Tesla some slack however, they are busy building cars!

Hopefully they just make a "open source" page on their website at some point where we can all download a copy of the 3.x kernel and some other GPL libraries.
 
Of course Tesla should be held to the terms of the license agreement, but it's a little premature to talk about "making sure Tesla obeys its legal commitments". It's very possible the car comes with some info about getting the source code. I have no reason to assume it doesn't. Why not just ask Tesla?
 
I'm not sure what the real intent is here, but it seems as though it is less of wanting to know the source code because of curiosity and because one wants to continue to develop the code and more of holding the gun to Tesla's head in a moment when everything else is so much more critical.

How about you let Tesla fix the existing problems, continue to trouble shoot some of the newer problems owners, etc. are identifying and get the damn cars out?
 
If I was in charge of the OS and firmware at Tesla, the first thing I would do is get rid of anything with the GPL virus attached. Perhaps go to FreeBSD, or from a security POV, OpenBSD.
And I agree with most others here, asking Tesla to release this at this time is a waste of their efforts at a critical moment. But again, whoever is in charge should have understood the ramifications of attaching themselves to the virus.
 
I have worked on several commercial products that use Linux and know many others in the industry that work on commercial Linux-based products including some of the early TiVo developers. No commercial software development organization is going to expose their unique intellectual property to the GPL. For example, TiVo needed a custom filesystem for their DVR, but rather than write it as a kernel module that would be subject to the GPL, they exposed a few kernel hooks and wrote the entire thing as a user process that was not subject to the GPL. So any request for TiVo's GPL modified code would only provide some new kernel hooks that would be useless to you without the non-GPL source code.

I have no knowledge of Tesla's hardware/software architecture, but I can assume the car is quite complex with dozens of micro-controllers and processors. But I'd bet money that anything having to do with the drivetrain, safety (braking/airbags, etc), is not using Linux at all. Linux is probably only used for the displays and all of the real value-add will certainly have been written as a user process and not subject to the GPL.

Embedded Linux systems are fairly mature at this point, so they probably haven't even done that much kernel work and heavily leverage existing work done by others. For example, most cars use the CAN bus to communicate with the car's micro controllers, and Volkswagen open sourced a Linux driver ages ago:

SocketCAN - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While Tesla should demonstrate good copyright hygiene by releasing their GPL tainted code (if any), it would be of little or no value to us as end users.

So what's the point again?
 
Last edited:
You seem very eager to find something (no offence intended), but why not just write Tesla and ask?
He has no legal right to ask for source until he has received a copy of the software (aka, his car).

I'm a bit surprised at all the people who are defending Tesla. I suspect that most of these people have not written any GPL software themselves. Tesla should know better than to violate software licenses - didn't they ship GPL code with the Roadster as well?

It is Tesla's legal responsibility to provide source for any GPL software shipping in the car and any modifications to said GPL software. If Tesla doesn't like the terms of the license - they are free to use other software instead.
 
I'm a bit surprised at all the people who are defending Tesla. I suspect that most of these people have not written any GPL software themselves. Tesla should know better than to violate software licenses

Having not written any GPL software excludes me from defending Tesla? I think not wrt this issue. It's not defending Tesla per se; it's acknowledging that the request was more malignant than one made in the spirit of fairness and openness. And, it came during an inopportune moment.

I think it's more that people are questioning 1) if there is even a violation, 2) why it matters, and 3) wishing the focus would be on getting out cars instead of stirring up problems. That's how I read this thread, anyway.

Agreed.
 
1) if there is even a violation
JB Straubel (CTO) has stated that they use Linux.

2) why it matters
It opens up the car to many user-modifications which otherwise would not be possible.

3) wishing the focus would be on getting out cars instead of stirring up problems.
This is just another problem that Tesla needs to address. It's really is quite simple to fix. Or it could bite them in the arse.

This topic has been covered before: Copyright (and Libel) Discussion