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

[breser]

By the way, I am pretty sure that if Tesla is found to have violated the GPL in court (which they would be), attorneys fees would be awarded under Copyright law (by rule).

Litigation can drag on for years. Winning doesn't immediately grant you whatever you get awarded. You then have to deal with appeals and then if you win all that actually collect it. In the meantime attorneys need to pay their bills and feed their family.

You might say, but don't lawyers work on contingency. Yes they do, but in this case the damages may still be very small. That Westinghouse case ended up giving just $90,000 in damages and a few TVs. That sounds like a lot until you consider the number of TVs they probably made. What really happened was the court only considered all of the TVs as a single copyright infringement. So taking on a case like this is probably not very attractive to work on contingency. Especially since usually the clients are not out to try and get massive awards but just get compliance. So they won't push to try and turn it into some ridiculously large sum by calculating the highest possible number of incidents of infringement.

What's really going to happen here is that a non-profit will find the funds and pay the lawyers.

 

[neroden]

I imagine they need to do much more than publish configuration files. I'm guessing they made substantial material changes.

Well, I guess I was being kind to Tesla. As Tesla's wilful infringement drags on, I see that others are making less charitable assumptions.

 

[Dave EV]

My guess is that Tesla will switch to a different kernel that's under a different license. In the meantime (still my guess), since nobody is bothering them they are willfully violating the license. By the time someone gets around to it, they will settle by releasing their changes, which will be meaningless because they won't be using it anymore. Or if the new kernel isn't ready by then they will stall the case until it is.

Tesla is shipping so much GPLed software in the car, I find it highly unlikely that they will switch operating systems any time soon.

Look at how many systems are running Linux from the recent hacking findings:
Hacking a Tesla Model S: What we found and what we learned | Lookout Blog

Linux is running on 3 different sub-systems and just scanning the article is running at least these 3 GPL programs:

WebKit
OpenVPN
dnsmasq

mini_httpd is not GPL, but it's existence must be acknowledged in the product's documentation.

 

[Ingineer]

3 subsystems? I'm aware of only 2; the IC and the MCU. The Gateway is OpenRTOS not Linux.

 

[Dave EV]

The Parrot FC6050 module appears to be built on Linux, see link above.

OpenRTS is GPL licenced, too, unless they paid for a FreeRTS licence. Not certain of the details there.

 

[rlang59]

The Parrot FC6050 module appears to be built on Linux, see link above.

Wouldn't the GPL compliance be Parrot Automotive's problem on that one?

 

[breser]

Wouldn't the GPL compliance be Parrot Automotive's problem on that one?

That depends on who is making the copy on the hardware that is being distributed (i.e. who is copying and distributing) and if that software is updated by the update mechanisms. If Parrot sells Tesla hardware preloaded with software and Tesla never makes another copy of that software (e.g. by updating it). Then yes that would be Parrot's problem. But as soon as Tesla makes another copy to distribute to owners, then they have taken on the compliance.

 

[rlang59]

That depends on who is making the copy on the hardware that is being distributed (i.e. who is copying and distributing) and if that software is updated by the update mechanisms. If Parrot sells Tesla hardware preloaded with software and Tesla never makes another copy of that software (e.g. by updating it). Then yes that would be Parrot's problem. But as soon as Tesla makes another copy to distribute to owners, then they have taken on the compliance.

Lets assume since it is a module that is sold to OEMs (FC6000+ - Parrot Automotive) they are responsible, has anyone tried to get the Linux on there from them?

Users Manual for what it's worth:
PARROT Bluetooth Module FCC ID RKXFC6050W (Users Manual)

Also part of your statement doesn't make sense to me. Are you saying that if Tesla gets a binary from Parrot to update the card (no source just a binary) then Tesla is responsible for the GPL and not Parrot?

 

[Dave EV]

Parrot is responsible for giving Tesla GPL source and Tesla is responsible for passing it along with any changes they may have made. If they did not make any changes, they still have to tell the owner where to get the GPL source.

 

[rlang59]

Parrot is responsible for giving Tesla GPL source and Tesla is responsible for passing it along with any changes they may have made. If they did not make any changes, they still have to tell the owner where to get the GPL source.

Ok but has anyone attempted to get the GPL source from Parrot? I'm honestly wondering since unless I missed it they don't seem to comply either.

 

[Dave EV]

I didn't look too hard for the code specific to the 6050, but a quick Google search reveals that Parrot is well aware of the GPL and regularly posts modified source code for the GPL binaries they distribute.

Tesla still needs to point to the appropriate Parrot sources for the binaries they are distributing.