I'm giving several different examples of reasons why Tesla may not be required to distribute source code directly; I'm not saying that's what they're definitively doing. My initial post this morning (which I'm beginning to regret ever posting) was simply to point out that no one here has posted a shred of credible proof that Tesla has violated the license. There have only been assumptions made about how Tesla manages the code.
Look you're thinking up all sorts of very unusual situations to find reasons why Tesla might not be violating the license. You're also trying to twist the law to say things it doesn't (particularly the maintenance and repair clause). You're working from the presumption that they aren't unless you have definitive evidence that they are. Not even someone pulling a copy of the firmware and finding that the Linux Kernel is indeed in use is sufficient for you because you want to find a way for Tesla not to be wrong. I'm also inclined to believe there is an awful lot of "I said something and now I really don't want to be wrong." Basically I think the only thing that will change your mind is if someone actually sues Tesla and wins.
I'm looking at a reasonable interpretation of the information we have. I think the scenarios that you are coming up with are unlikely. I find your interpretation of the law to be inconsistent with my understanding of it and the relevant case law. I'm not inclined to just presume that Tesla is doing the right thing. I have this opinion because I've seen Tesla do things that are not the right thing. I've pointed them out, and at least in my case Tesla has resolved the situation. I give them a lot of credit in that respect. But my bubble that Tesla can do wrong most certainly has been busted after I bought the first car with them. So in my opinion I take a more nuanced approach to what they are doing. In this particular case I think it is
likely they are violating the license. That disappoints me, but I'm also not feeling terribly damaged by it so I'm not hassling Tesla about it.
In a court of law Tesla would indeed have the presumption of innocence. But I'm not obligated to give them that in my opinion and discussion on a public forum (the veritable court of public opinion). At the same point if this was a court of law the Plaintiff would have discovery and would have the opportunity to require Tesla to turn over their source, object code and procedures to find out for sure. You could in that case get a great deal more proof than we have.
But we don't have that level of authority to find out for sure. So your effort to demand absolute proof in my opinion is just an effort to shut down the conversation. Create an impossible to reach standard and claim that everyone that can't reach it should shut up. I don't tend to think that sort of standard should prevail on a discussion forum. Applying the same standard to every other discussion would mean that we can't possibly have a discussion. So much of what we talk about includes a healthy dose of speculation and effort to apply logic to the scenario.
I've tried to have a reasonable conversation with you about this. I've tried to entertain your notions of what Tesla could be doing to be shipping the Linux Kernel without violating the GPLv2. But I've found that the substantive points of my responses are ignored and you simply repeat your argument. Given your statement about regretting your initial post I suspect you're looking for a way out of this conversation, but just can't stand to lose.
So consider this post an admission that I can't prove to a degree that will satisfy you that Tesla is violating the license.
Look you won. Now you can go back to whatever it is you wanted to be doing right now instead.
