Louis Rossmann could sue John Deere for GPL violation [video](youtube.com)
youtube.com
Louis Rossmann could sue John Deere for GPL violation [video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP7Qx1FF1hA
201 comments
For that specific issue, you don't need the source code, you need the dealer diagnostic/programming toolkit. Hyundai GDS, BMW ISTA, each manufacturer has their own but I believe they're mostly reskinned and customized 3rd party products (I think Mazda & Ford have a shared toolkit).
These give you everything from the service manual (detailed info on how to do any repair operation, with steps and photos), diagnostic code scanning and guided troubleshooters, and access to the car's electronics for putting ECUs into service mode (like the electronic parking brake) or reprogramming them with updated firmware (which is complicated and you probably don't need to do it). The service steps will interface with the car's ECUs - if you need to change the transmission fluid, the software will prepare the transmission, help you get it up to temperature and maintain that temperature, and then reset the calibration of the transmission at the end. And it'll show the technician each mechanical step they have to do along the way. Very advanced stuff.
You can generally get this software a normal person, but it's a expensive subscription:
https://hyundaitechinfo.com/ https://bmwtechinfo.bmwgroup.com/
You can usually find cracked versions online, but recently they've been getting more and more locked down.
As for your battery replacement thing, there are 3rd party phone apps which can do it. You'll just need a compatible OBD adapter. I don't know what it is for VW, but for BMW BimmerLink gives you diagnostic info and lets you reset the battery, and BimmerCode lets you change some config options in the car ECUs to enable some useful small QoL features. I'm sure there is similar software for VAG cars.
These give you everything from the service manual (detailed info on how to do any repair operation, with steps and photos), diagnostic code scanning and guided troubleshooters, and access to the car's electronics for putting ECUs into service mode (like the electronic parking brake) or reprogramming them with updated firmware (which is complicated and you probably don't need to do it). The service steps will interface with the car's ECUs - if you need to change the transmission fluid, the software will prepare the transmission, help you get it up to temperature and maintain that temperature, and then reset the calibration of the transmission at the end. And it'll show the technician each mechanical step they have to do along the way. Very advanced stuff.
You can generally get this software a normal person, but it's a expensive subscription:
https://hyundaitechinfo.com/ https://bmwtechinfo.bmwgroup.com/
You can usually find cracked versions online, but recently they've been getting more and more locked down.
As for your battery replacement thing, there are 3rd party phone apps which can do it. You'll just need a compatible OBD adapter. I don't know what it is for VW, but for BMW BimmerLink gives you diagnostic info and lets you reset the battery, and BimmerCode lets you change some config options in the car ECUs to enable some useful small QoL features. I'm sure there is similar software for VAG cars.
> For that specific issue, you don't need the source code, you need the dealer diagnostic/programming toolkit.
Presumably the source code to that toolkit would be just as good, and having access to the car's source code would let you build your own toolkit.
Presumably the source code to that toolkit would be just as good, and having access to the car's source code would let you build your own toolkit.
from hundred dollar hardware and software license to "just put this image on your raspi"
GP doesn't personally want the source code, they're saying if it was available there would likely be an open source and/or cheaply available third-party toolkit so they wouldn't need the (probably unobtainable?) manufacturer's official one intended for dealers.
> If the source code would be publicly accessible, probably a cheap OBD-2 adapter would be capable of doing this.
> If the source code would be publicly accessible, probably a cheap OBD-2 adapter would be capable of doing this.
I don't know for the most recent versions but until recently there always was a button configuration on all Fords which does this without obd adapter. Requires a bit of searching but there are plenty of forums describing it. The combinations might differ per model though.
Al that DRM also makes it neigh impossible to self service your car these days.
Al that DRM also makes it neigh impossible to self service your car these days.
Buy an OBDeleven or VCDS if you own a VW and are doing any work on it yourself.
You can also adjust features (roll up windows with remote, etc). Run diagnostics in real time while driving, test every switch/sensor on the car. Also, it is needed if you do a brake job on the rear brakes to open/close the parking brake so you can put the pads in.
I don't believe you need to recode the battery if you replace with the exact same battery but you need to change it if you don't put in the OEM one [1]
Yeah we don't have the source code. But with long coding adaptations in the system you can do a large portion of what you need to do (engine/trans swaps). If going deeper is needed there are companies who reflash/recode ECUs but that is about as deep as you can go without doing independent module hacking.
[1] https://youtu.be/48w9Cg4ObEk
You can also adjust features (roll up windows with remote, etc). Run diagnostics in real time while driving, test every switch/sensor on the car. Also, it is needed if you do a brake job on the rear brakes to open/close the parking brake so you can put the pads in.
I don't believe you need to recode the battery if you replace with the exact same battery but you need to change it if you don't put in the OEM one [1]
Yeah we don't have the source code. But with long coding adaptations in the system you can do a large portion of what you need to do (engine/trans swaps). If going deeper is needed there are companies who reflash/recode ECUs but that is about as deep as you can go without doing independent module hacking.
[1] https://youtu.be/48w9Cg4ObEk
Are car batteries smart now? How would your car know what brand of battery you put in?
LiFePO4 batteries that you'll find in some vehicles (more often than not for running accessory loads, not starting the engine - though some models are intended for dual purpose use) usually have a decent degree of intelligence baked into an on-board BMS system.
Typical car batteries are not yet so 'smart'. The post-battery-swap 'coding' that many euro vehicles need is to instruct the car-side BMS about the battery's characteristics so that it can tune things like its start-stop routine, alternator behavior, etc. to optimize battery life and resilience.
Typical car batteries are not yet so 'smart'. The post-battery-swap 'coding' that many euro vehicles need is to instruct the car-side BMS about the battery's characteristics so that it can tune things like its start-stop routine, alternator behavior, etc. to optimize battery life and resilience.
Added the video that explains it in the edit above.
If you put in the same battery it isn't an issue. You need to recode if you change the size or type.
If you put in the same battery it isn't an issue. You need to recode if you change the size or type.
[deleted]
Any VW-approved diagnostic tool can recode the battery. Allegedly (I haven't personally had need to try it yet) the ODBEleven (https://obdeleven.com/en/) can do so.
It IS incredibly silly that you need a specialized tool to code the new battery, but unfortunately that's the direction the auto industry seems to be going.
It IS incredibly silly that you need a specialized tool to code the new battery, but unfortunately that's the direction the auto industry seems to be going.
If you need an entire application to reset a battery status (btw: why is that even needed?) the problem is with the process of resetting the battery status, not with having the source code of the application. Why is there not a simple procedure like pressing a button or a combination of buttons or a menu in the radio?
I can partially explain this since I've had to do this in the past. You have to program the BMS for the specific chemistry and capacity of the battery you install. It's not a reset. 99% of the time you don't even need to reprogram the BMS. But a lead, SLA, AGM, and Rolls have different properties. Like you couldn't replace a lead acid with a lithium ion battery because the charge algorithm could destroy the new battery.
Finally, cars are doing a lot more with the onboard starter battery. Or in case of hybrids, a lot less. A modern car is never truly off once the key is out. The BMS will need to know the real capacity of the battery so it can reserve enough charge to start the car.
Finally, cars are doing a lot more with the onboard starter battery. Or in case of hybrids, a lot less. A modern car is never truly off once the key is out. The BMS will need to know the real capacity of the battery so it can reserve enough charge to start the car.
If the car is able to disconnect it's starter battery, and can start up and run just fine after a disconnect, why does it need to be powered up at all when the car is off? What's so important for the car to do, that it can sit there draining the battery, but still be happy to completely disconnect the electrical system to preserve a startup?
At a minimum and at its most benign, it has to power sensors to detect key commands when you get near it, or functions like keeping the headlights on for a while after you lock it (usually branded "follow me home" or similar). There are probably more debatable things like checking for OTA updates or sending sensor data to some online services.
Mostly driver convenience. I drive a mid-tier VW with infotainment, power seats, satellite navigation, etc. If I don't drive the car after a few days it takes a few minutes for the car to fully boot up. No radio, GPS, climate control goes full blast, and it won't know what my power seat settings are. Now imagine having to do that every time you pull the key out, run in the supermarket, and go back to the car.
We're demanding a lot from the car battery lately and the BMS needs to know where it stands.
We're demanding a lot from the car battery lately and the BMS needs to know where it stands.
I know how a BMS works and I kind of understand why a reset is needed, but to replace a battery with a new one of the same characteristics (capacity, chemistry etc) should need a very simple reset procedure with no external tools. With the modern displays in most of the cars, you can put that in a menu there.
I am still riding a motorcycle with no battery and kickstarter. That is the ultimate reliability and dependability, the last thing you want in the middle of the mountains is the vehicle to stop because it does not have the latest monthly Windows update for .Net framework that works only OTA and there is no signal in that area. I am exaggerating a bit, but only for artistic purposes :)
I am still riding a motorcycle with no battery and kickstarter. That is the ultimate reliability and dependability, the last thing you want in the middle of the mountains is the vehicle to stop because it does not have the latest monthly Windows update for .Net framework that works only OTA and there is no signal in that area. I am exaggerating a bit, but only for artistic purposes :)
Driving battery replacement to the authorized dealer network, when combined with various up-sell charges that they concoct some reason to tack on and it represents a very significant profit opportunity. It has nothing to do with the actual BMS and they aren't particularly interested in optimizing anything but their sales/service funnel.
So at this point the battery needs to come with a QR code on a piece of paper that, once installing the battery and starting the car then entering some service mode, you can hold in front of the backup camera so the car can read in the characteristics of the battery, eh?
Fine, but why do you need a special tool to reprogram the BMS? The car should have a "reset" button or something built into it that you can trigger when needed to accomplish this.
Yes. Why not have a texeditor for a config save file in the radio?
Reminder that John Deere is going around the country at the state level sabotaging right to repair bills while this is happening. This company is openly hostile to the public and needs to be reined* in.
It would be useful to have a court case be litigated all the way to the Supreme Court to establish the enforceability of the GPL whereby the defendant is forced to share code against their will.
> whereby the defendant is forced to share code against their will.
This remedy of compelling a party to do something they agreed to do is called 'specific performance', and US courts only even consider doing this when real property (land) is involved.
For copyright infringement, generally what's available is injunctive relief preventing further infringement, disgorgement of profits, and statutory damages and attorneys fees as permitted by title 17. The injunction and disgorgement are the killers here that actually scare would-be infringers, and they mean that in most cases what you actually end up with is a settlement.
This remedy of compelling a party to do something they agreed to do is called 'specific performance', and US courts only even consider doing this when real property (land) is involved.
For copyright infringement, generally what's available is injunctive relief preventing further infringement, disgorgement of profits, and statutory damages and attorneys fees as permitted by title 17. The injunction and disgorgement are the killers here that actually scare would-be infringers, and they mean that in most cases what you actually end up with is a settlement.
Which is why it would be nice for the Supreme Court to confirm GPL's enforceability. It hasn't been tested in courts, but it would be insanely powerful for the open source community to begin enforcing it.
It would extend the right to repair to the software that we write.
It would extend the right to repair to the software that we write.
For what it's worth, the Federal Circuit, the Eleventh Circuit, and the Seventh Circuit have heard cases dealing with the GPL or some other open source license, and they all understood the big picture and were fine with it. (the cases are Planetary Motion v. Techsplosion, Wallace v. IBM, and Jacobsen v. Katzer).
> only even consider doing this when real property (land) is involved.
Courts force the sale of companies (etc) that don't involve real property. I think maybe they're reluctant and prefer monetary remedies but if what you say is correct that would neuter contracts pretty severely.
Courts force the sale of companies (etc) that don't involve real property. I think maybe they're reluctant and prefer monetary remedies but if what you say is correct that would neuter contracts pretty severely.
Specific performance is most common in real property disputes because land is inherently non-fungible. But in most US states a court can order it wherever it finds that monetary damages are inadequate to remedy a breach.
You'd think specific performance would be the right remedy in the case of a GPL breach since no money is involved really.
Exactly. This fantasy of forcing companies to release source code because of past use is just that: a fantasy.
Imagine if you pirated photoshop and the courts retroactively forced you to install Adobe spyware to comply with the license. Obviously the most the court could do is fine you or prevent further infringement.
Imagine if you pirated photoshop and the courts retroactively forced you to install Adobe spyware to comply with the license. Obviously the most the court could do is fine you or prevent further infringement.
It's no more fanciful than assessing exorbitant damages for distributing each copy made via BitTorrent. The courts were fine with letting that happen.
Just because the plaintiffs aren't operating billion dollar businesses doesn't make their infringement claims less valid. The terms of the GPL explicitly spell out Deere's obligations. If they ignore them it converts to plain old copyright infringement with damages due for every illegal copy made.
Just because the plaintiffs aren't operating billion dollar businesses doesn't make their infringement claims less valid. The terms of the GPL explicitly spell out Deere's obligations. If they ignore them it converts to plain old copyright infringement with damages due for every illegal copy made.
It's not as simple as that. What if it infeasible to remove the GPL code from your product and are unwilling to withdraw your product. It could be argued that compensation would be unacceptable, inadequate and impractical given hundreds of anonymous contributors writing software on an ideological, rather than financial basis. Why would being forced to share your code be taken off the table in that case? I could see the court finding that it would be the only equitable remedy.
Sure, but infeasible is decided by the business. Their choice is either to not distribute anymore (and potentially pay damages for past infringement) or distribute in line with the license.
Is owning a tractor not considered real property?
No 'real property' is a legal term of art referring principally to land and buildings.
No, it's real as in real estate.
What if you have a building where you have LAN parties that play Unreal Tournament? Does that count?
What if you host watch parties of the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills?
What if its address is on El Camino Real?
What if you host watch parties of the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills?
What if its address is on El Camino Real?
> in most cases what you actually end up with is a settlement.
I'm curious, what would that look like in this case (for a GPL violation)?
Do you need to track down every single person who contributed code under GPL and get them to agree?
I'm curious, what would that look like in this case (for a GPL violation)?
Do you need to track down every single person who contributed code under GPL and get them to agree?
You settle the individual lawsuit with the party that started it. For a work with multiple authors, that wouldn't prevent the other copyright holders from suing you. This is one of the reasons GPL projects make lawyers risk-averse...
Generally the way GPL has been in the courts, the suing party won't just take some money and walk away happy, they'll ask for the infringement to end (one way or the other). That would make other copyright holders happy too.
Generally the way GPL has been in the courts, the suing party won't just take some money and walk away happy, they'll ask for the infringement to end (one way or the other). That would make other copyright holders happy too.
Whoever/whatever owns the copyright to the underlying work(s) would need to sue to get the ball rolling. Current statutory law doesn't directly address copyright ownership with respect to the kinds of collaboration we see in open source, but if there's a "main author" for the code base you would just need them in most cases.
[deleted]
The current supreme court is very unlikely to rule for an individual against a large company.
https://www.axios.com/2022/08/04/supreme-court-john-roberts-...
https://www.axios.com/2022/08/04/supreme-court-john-roberts-...
I wonder if the fact that lost of companies would like to stick lots of weird rules in their licenses could help here. Where’s John Deere in the pantheon of companies? They can’t be more powerful than the Googles and Faces Book of the world, right?
John Deere is the 84th largest company on the Fortune 500. It may be below Google or Facebook, but it's still a major player.
I think they have confuse pro-government with pro-business.
The Supreme court since FDR has been very resistant to role back the role of federal government, they have no problems smacking down state laws, but when it comes to rolling back federal laws or regulations well....
So here it would be determinative on which "side" the federal government chooses, or if the federal government stays silent which silence IMO is probably the most likely outcome for the federal government.
If they stay out of the fight, I think Deere Loses. If the federal government defends Deere then I think it is more 50/50
The Supreme court since FDR has been very resistant to role back the role of federal government, they have no problems smacking down state laws, but when it comes to rolling back federal laws or regulations well....
So here it would be determinative on which "side" the federal government chooses, or if the federal government stays silent which silence IMO is probably the most likely outcome for the federal government.
If they stay out of the fight, I think Deere Loses. If the federal government defends Deere then I think it is more 50/50
This could be messy to implement since the guilty party could have other legal obligations that prevent them from releasing the source code.
Easy. Then they can't distribute their tractors anymore.
Or they get to switch from Linux to BSD/etc.
And of course, depending on chipsets used, that could be an expensive retrofit for existing tractors if BSD/etc doesn't support what is currently in use, or the providers or JD have to write their own drivers to support a BSD usage.
Even then, there's still the likelihood they are using GPL code/libraries above and beyond Linux itself.
Even then, there's still the likelihood they are using GPL code/libraries above and beyond Linux itself.
I wouldn't expect the current supreme court to rule in any way that doesn't benefit corporate america.
A video? This is the better link https://www.theregister.com/2023/03/17/john_deere_sfc_gpl/
> Gingerich told us that the most widely-deployed GPL-covered software in Deere machinery is Linux. "As with most Linux distributions, it uses several other programs under copyleft (i.e. right to repair) licenses as well," he said.
what?
what?
Somewhat confused reporting, but it sounds like Gingerich was probably referring to "Linux" colloquially, as in a Linux distribution. That would in most cases include other GPL software such as GNU coreutils, or possibly BusyBox. (And then The Register quoted that as Linux itself including other GPL'd programs, which isn't quite right.)
Meanwhile https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/mar/16/john-deere-gpl-vi... doesn't mention Linux.
I see it as very hypocritical - Yeah we are ignoring licenses of others, but I dare you to install into "your" tractor a part which is not DRM signed by John Deere.
[deleted]
[deleted]
"right to repair licenses"? GPL was never designed for right to repair, but rather right to extend and modify, i.e. Open Source.
> GPL was never designed for right to repair, but rather right to extend and modify
no, GPL was designed for right to modify source code with no restrictions on what you could use the modified code for, which would include repair.
no, GPL was designed for right to modify source code with no restrictions on what you could use the modified code for, which would include repair.
I'm objecting to it being called a "right to repair license". It's not a right to repair license. It's a copyleft open-source license. That just happens to be extremely useful for repair because it requires being able to install new versions and have them function, but it isn't a "right to repair license" because it does a lot more than that. :(
but it explicitly says no restrictions can be placed on what you do with the code, so it is entirely correct to say it's a "right to do X" snowclone-license.
I like to say the GPL gives me the right to repair software.
Actually, GPL was originally motivated by Stallman wanting to repair a printer at MIT that had a software bug.
right to fix bugs
That article has no mention of Louis Rossman in it.
Sure. Because Louis Rossman has nothing to do with the potential/upcoming GPL enfringement claim to John Deere. It's linux and several other GPL utitities they are using, but nothing with a Copyright (c) Louis Rossman, so he cannot sue. Nor does he own such a tractor.
The FSF, the Linux copyright holders or tractor owners can sue. Gingerich for the SFC is bugging them for years.
Just a misleading title to drive traffic to his video blog.
Just a misleading title to drive traffic to his video blog.
The misleading title seems to have been created by the submitter of the video to HN, as the video on Youtube is titled "Holding corporate criminals ACCOUNTABLE; it's about time we start".
They made a factual error, presumably accidentally, but I'm glad they didn't go with that original one, personally.
Better then, perhaps:
> John Deere might be sued for GPL violation - Louis Rossman [video]
(or even 'should', since that's his angle, not neutral factual reporting)
Better then, perhaps:
> John Deere might be sued for GPL violation - Louis Rossman [video]
(or even 'should', since that's his angle, not neutral factual reporting)
I was wondering how he'd have standing unless some of the code was his.
I expect he is just planning to fund either SFC (as representatives of Linux copyright holders) or a farmer (as a third-party beneficiary of the GPL) in order to bring such a lawsuit.
PS: for the third-party beneficiary option, see the SFC v Vizio case.
https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html
PS: for the third-party beneficiary option, see the SFC v Vizio case.
https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html
If I were to go forward with something like this, I would rather provide support/funding to an organization that has been pursuing this that I find to be well versed, qualified, and ready to go, than do it myself.
With the Right to Repair stuff, in some states, I've put together my own lobbying plans. In others, I tried to figure out who had the best foothold there already with an actionable plan & pre-existing experience winning on similar issues and funded them. Some examples of this were washington, rather than do it myself I gave USPIRG a fair amount of funding to get it done, which is helpful since the charlie brown affair sullied my reputation among some of the legislators.
Even in states where we do our own lobbying, there is usually a large level of partnership with organizations that already exist within the state, and a microgrant program where we fund a bunch of small groups to educate locals/organize people prior to making a legislative/lobbying push.
With the Right to Repair stuff, in some states, I've put together my own lobbying plans. In others, I tried to figure out who had the best foothold there already with an actionable plan & pre-existing experience winning on similar issues and funded them. Some examples of this were washington, rather than do it myself I gave USPIRG a fair amount of funding to get it done, which is helpful since the charlie brown affair sullied my reputation among some of the legislators.
Even in states where we do our own lobbying, there is usually a large level of partnership with organizations that already exist within the state, and a microgrant program where we fund a bunch of small groups to educate locals/organize people prior to making a legislative/lobbying push.
In theory, this sounds like a well thought out approach.
Is it working well in practise?
If you were to start fresh at solving the problem again, what would you do differently?
Is it working well in practise?
If you were to start fresh at solving the problem again, what would you do differently?
>since the charlie brown affair sullied my reputation among some of the legislators
I don’t know what you are referring to. Mind explaining?
I don’t know what you are referring to. Mind explaining?
This guy pretended to be offended at me calling him clueless in my video thumbnail here. TL;DR - he implied independents might install tiktok on customer cellphones if they're unauthorized. See this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vmbDczK-78
He then said he cannot negotiate with bullies, and the legislature said if the opposition won't negotiate, then we can't pass a bill.
Imagine if I said that I refused to be present at my murder trial because I didn't like the clerk. Would I get off trial for murder? Hell no. But it works for them.
He makes broad assumptions and undermines trust in our entire industry, and claims me calling him "clueless" in the thumbnail is beyond the pale - that's just too much! As a result, I am hands off in that state. I supply money and resources to people who do the work in that state, and keep my name off of it all. There was one senator who was on my side, Doug Erickson, but he died of COVID....
The irony of it all, one of the companies he represents, Samsung, actually DID start installing tiktok on customer phones without their consent, a point I went over 2 years later. This happened months after the legislature tossed right to repair because of concerns about repair shops stealing student data/copies of their homework... I'm not kidding. My demeanor in this video is kind of off the wall, but.. can you blame me? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUThdBfy_-U
He then said he cannot negotiate with bullies, and the legislature said if the opposition won't negotiate, then we can't pass a bill.
Imagine if I said that I refused to be present at my murder trial because I didn't like the clerk. Would I get off trial for murder? Hell no. But it works for them.
He makes broad assumptions and undermines trust in our entire industry, and claims me calling him "clueless" in the thumbnail is beyond the pale - that's just too much! As a result, I am hands off in that state. I supply money and resources to people who do the work in that state, and keep my name off of it all. There was one senator who was on my side, Doug Erickson, but he died of COVID....
The irony of it all, one of the companies he represents, Samsung, actually DID start installing tiktok on customer phones without their consent, a point I went over 2 years later. This happened months after the legislature tossed right to repair because of concerns about repair shops stealing student data/copies of their homework... I'm not kidding. My demeanor in this video is kind of off the wall, but.. can you blame me? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUThdBfy_-U
[deleted]
He's going to bring the money for an attorney, not sue in his own name.
Thank you!
What I don't understand is why John Deer with their incredibly expensive tractors doesn't just use Windows CE or any other proprietary OS. They can afford it and it's not like Linux development is any easier than Windows development.
Offtopic: is it true what he says about Apple pairing their sleep sensor chip to their security signatures? That would be such a scumbag move.
Offtopic: is it true what he says about Apple pairing their sleep sensor chip to their security signatures? That would be such a scumbag move.
>Offtopic: is it true what he says about Apple pairing their sleep sensor chip to their security signatures? That would be such a scumbag move.
Try replacing an angle sensor in a A2442. It won't work, even if it is from another Macbook. It has to have GSX run on it for it to work.
What we do now when they're corroded is do our best to try and clean up the existing one. Maybe desolder the hall sensor, use a fine tipped iron like the Hakko 2032 w/ T30-KN tip to "file" the pins and pads as much as we can, and put it back on. Sometimes, it works.
When it doesn't, we tell the customer "I'm sorry, no sleep for you. Only manual sleeping!" It sucks.
The places with access to GSX, are the places not permitted to do component level board repair on machines with liquid damage.
The places without access to GSX, are the places with the best ratings in the country for component level repair on machines with liquid damage.
The world is a meme.
Try replacing an angle sensor in a A2442. It won't work, even if it is from another Macbook. It has to have GSX run on it for it to work.
What we do now when they're corroded is do our best to try and clean up the existing one. Maybe desolder the hall sensor, use a fine tipped iron like the Hakko 2032 w/ T30-KN tip to "file" the pins and pads as much as we can, and put it back on. Sometimes, it works.
When it doesn't, we tell the customer "I'm sorry, no sleep for you. Only manual sleeping!" It sucks.
The places with access to GSX, are the places not permitted to do component level board repair on machines with liquid damage.
The places without access to GSX, are the places with the best ratings in the country for component level repair on machines with liquid damage.
The world is a meme.
That's terrible to an almost comedic level.
Off topic but have you considered adding Chat-GPT added summaries to your videos as a TL;DW? There is a plugin called eightify.app that produces summaries. It just feel like sometimes you are limiting your audiences to the hard core nerds with your long winded rants.
>Off topic but have you considered adding Chat-GPT added summaries to your videos as a TL;DW? There is a plugin called eightify.app that produces summaries. It just feel like sometimes you are limiting your audiences to the hard core nerds with your long winded rants.
No. My channel was never started with the goal of having 100m subscribers. In my initial musings, I thought, MAX subscribership, BEST CASE scenario was 300 subscribers, since I estimated the people going down the LCD-cell-only/component level repair rabbithole with Apple products to be around 300 at the time 10 yrs ago. and that assumes 100% of them watch/subscribe to my channel, which is a lofty figure.
getting to 1.7 million subscribers is ridiculous. This wasn't supposed to happen. A cursory look at my older videos, total lack of preparation, production quality, etc should make clear that the goal was never widespread viewership.
but, if 1.7 million people ARE viewing, if I've blown out my initial best-case-scenario by 3 zeros and change.... why go out of my way to do it all differently? Why adapt my content to people who admit they don't want to watch anyway?
It's not a movie, it's a 9 minute video... I totally get if someone doesn't want to watch a 9 minute video, but... I'm not making content for them.
I wasn't trying to get big, I was just producing what I felt like producing.. if doing that got me to 1.7 mil, maybe being myself is the thing to keep doing.
No. My channel was never started with the goal of having 100m subscribers. In my initial musings, I thought, MAX subscribership, BEST CASE scenario was 300 subscribers, since I estimated the people going down the LCD-cell-only/component level repair rabbithole with Apple products to be around 300 at the time 10 yrs ago. and that assumes 100% of them watch/subscribe to my channel, which is a lofty figure.
getting to 1.7 million subscribers is ridiculous. This wasn't supposed to happen. A cursory look at my older videos, total lack of preparation, production quality, etc should make clear that the goal was never widespread viewership.
but, if 1.7 million people ARE viewing, if I've blown out my initial best-case-scenario by 3 zeros and change.... why go out of my way to do it all differently? Why adapt my content to people who admit they don't want to watch anyway?
It's not a movie, it's a 9 minute video... I totally get if someone doesn't want to watch a 9 minute video, but... I'm not making content for them.
I wasn't trying to get big, I was just producing what I felt like producing.. if doing that got me to 1.7 mil, maybe being myself is the thing to keep doing.
>Why adapt my content to people who admit they don't want to watch anyway?
Going back to the point of my inquiry: If you are serious about pushing this issue into the mainstream rather than just being just a channel that a certain small segment of the population happens to enjoy, then wouldn't you want to expand the audience to be as large as possible? Like it or not, there is a large percentage of potential supporters who are just not going to sit around and watch what is typically 20+ minutes of rambling.
If you are not really serious about this then I understand your hesitation but then why the involvement with Futo?
Going back to the point of my inquiry: If you are serious about pushing this issue into the mainstream rather than just being just a channel that a certain small segment of the population happens to enjoy, then wouldn't you want to expand the audience to be as large as possible? Like it or not, there is a large percentage of potential supporters who are just not going to sit around and watch what is typically 20+ minutes of rambling.
If you are not really serious about this then I understand your hesitation but then why the involvement with Futo?
There's at least 50 videos on the channel on any of the issues I consider to be main issues that are 5 minutes or less. The people who make the criticisms you make usually don't watch any of those.
It's not just the 10 minute video they think is boring, it's anything I produce. They're not viewers, they're commenters when something frontpages reddit or hn.
and that's fine - people don't have to watch or like my stuff. I just don't produce content for people who will NEVER watch my stuff. It's like fogo de chao trying to cater to vegans.
I could make this video 30 seconds, but it loses its effect. It loses the story, which is what draws people in who otherwise wouldn't care. Without the history, the details, the villain, and the point - do you honestly believe a 15 short of "hey bro john deere uses gpl stuff and doesn't release it rawr" would have the same effect as this video? Even 10% the effect, of getting normal people to care about farmers getting screwed? I doubt it.
I could be wrong, but as far as "Pushing into mainstream" - it made CBC news, at least half a dozen other news stations, got a 50 page report from the FTC, made it to the president's desk, was mentioned in an executive order, and a bill just passed a week ago.. I don't know how much more mainstream it gets unless the issue gets made into a boy band.
It's not just the 10 minute video they think is boring, it's anything I produce. They're not viewers, they're commenters when something frontpages reddit or hn.
and that's fine - people don't have to watch or like my stuff. I just don't produce content for people who will NEVER watch my stuff. It's like fogo de chao trying to cater to vegans.
I could make this video 30 seconds, but it loses its effect. It loses the story, which is what draws people in who otherwise wouldn't care. Without the history, the details, the villain, and the point - do you honestly believe a 15 short of "hey bro john deere uses gpl stuff and doesn't release it rawr" would have the same effect as this video? Even 10% the effect, of getting normal people to care about farmers getting screwed? I doubt it.
I could be wrong, but as far as "Pushing into mainstream" - it made CBC news, at least half a dozen other news stations, got a 50 page report from the FTC, made it to the president's desk, was mentioned in an executive order, and a bill just passed a week ago.. I don't know how much more mainstream it gets unless the issue gets made into a boy band.
To be clear, all I was suggesting was to try that app out and maybe post the results as a "pinned comment" in the hopes that anyone that might click off from the video sees the summary and does not totally disregard it. You make a good point about the successes such as the bill in Colorado and the CBC piece. Maybe I really am asking something totally unreasonable. I don't really know.
Honestly I think we really need someone else to lead and be the public face of this movement. Someone who is known and liked by the mass population. Look at other great movements in this country's history. There is always some character that captures the publics imagination wither through charm or just insane grit.
We can't JUST have a richard stallman like character who sticks to his way of doing things stubbornly and expect to see the finish line. Maybe this movement has already reached escape velocity and it does not matter. Maybe someone at iFixit or someone else that I am not thinking of is already that public face that can reach the masses. Maybe someone is waiting in the wings.
I'm reminded of an event I experienced when I took a senior level Linux Kernel class in college. The class was taught by this hardcore GPL and privacy loving professor who had worked at Bell Labs and had started several startups in the open source/IT sector.
We had a class of 50 people and the first day he told everyone that this class is one of the hardest in the university and that he does not care if you struggle, he would not accommodate you in any way because it is worth learning the Kernel the hard way by being thrown head first into the ocean. He acted with such determination of his way of thinking, that I imagine it really scared a lot of the students. Well, the next class we had lost about 50% of the student body (including the 10 or so women in the class).
It was a grueling class and one of the most knowledgable classes I ever took but now ten years later I look at how the CS graduates i'm hiring at my company now live their entire lives in a smartphone and only use a regular PC when it is absolutely necessary (for work). They barely know how the OS and underlying components in the machine work.
It makes me think, that in hindsight that professor was totally wrong. He caused people who may have dipped their toes into the water and joined the other side to give up too early. Now we have a reduced pool of people who truly understand why all of this matters.
Some of those people might now be like the people I have to hire now. In the case of my developers, they do pretty good work for what they need to do. They don't write kernel code. How many people do that? They build CRUD apps. For these people: The companies won. They live in the Apple/Microsoft/whatever ecosystem and don't care about fundamentals because to them, life is fine. I hope this is not what is going on with right to repair.
Have you watched any Farmer Youtuber channels? I have watched a handful of "Gen-Z" farming youtube channels and I seem to notice there is a lot of love for John Deere since they sponsor social media events here and there. I remember one youtube farming couple in Nebraska discuss right to repair in youtube livestreams when the first news of farmers hacking their equipment made all the tech sites. They seemed quite indifferent to the movement as a whole and discussed how they always have their rep available when they need help. Sure this is an anecdote but it stuck with me because its making me scared that the same thing that I am experiencing with my developer hires is a generation wide problem regardless of industry.
Have we scared off the masses already just like my professor did?
Honestly I think we really need someone else to lead and be the public face of this movement. Someone who is known and liked by the mass population. Look at other great movements in this country's history. There is always some character that captures the publics imagination wither through charm or just insane grit.
We can't JUST have a richard stallman like character who sticks to his way of doing things stubbornly and expect to see the finish line. Maybe this movement has already reached escape velocity and it does not matter. Maybe someone at iFixit or someone else that I am not thinking of is already that public face that can reach the masses. Maybe someone is waiting in the wings.
I'm reminded of an event I experienced when I took a senior level Linux Kernel class in college. The class was taught by this hardcore GPL and privacy loving professor who had worked at Bell Labs and had started several startups in the open source/IT sector.
We had a class of 50 people and the first day he told everyone that this class is one of the hardest in the university and that he does not care if you struggle, he would not accommodate you in any way because it is worth learning the Kernel the hard way by being thrown head first into the ocean. He acted with such determination of his way of thinking, that I imagine it really scared a lot of the students. Well, the next class we had lost about 50% of the student body (including the 10 or so women in the class).
It was a grueling class and one of the most knowledgable classes I ever took but now ten years later I look at how the CS graduates i'm hiring at my company now live their entire lives in a smartphone and only use a regular PC when it is absolutely necessary (for work). They barely know how the OS and underlying components in the machine work.
It makes me think, that in hindsight that professor was totally wrong. He caused people who may have dipped their toes into the water and joined the other side to give up too early. Now we have a reduced pool of people who truly understand why all of this matters.
Some of those people might now be like the people I have to hire now. In the case of my developers, they do pretty good work for what they need to do. They don't write kernel code. How many people do that? They build CRUD apps. For these people: The companies won. They live in the Apple/Microsoft/whatever ecosystem and don't care about fundamentals because to them, life is fine. I hope this is not what is going on with right to repair.
Have you watched any Farmer Youtuber channels? I have watched a handful of "Gen-Z" farming youtube channels and I seem to notice there is a lot of love for John Deere since they sponsor social media events here and there. I remember one youtube farming couple in Nebraska discuss right to repair in youtube livestreams when the first news of farmers hacking their equipment made all the tech sites. They seemed quite indifferent to the movement as a whole and discussed how they always have their rep available when they need help. Sure this is an anecdote but it stuck with me because its making me scared that the same thing that I am experiencing with my developer hires is a generation wide problem regardless of industry.
Have we scared off the masses already just like my professor did?
[deleted]
You're both right.
Louis, don't mess with the success on your channel by changing now.
But, creating some content targeted at the mainstream would be a very good idea. Don't do it instead of your existing approach, just in addition to.
Louis, don't mess with the success on your channel by changing now.
But, creating some content targeted at the mainstream would be a very good idea. Don't do it instead of your existing approach, just in addition to.
I wasn't really asking him to give up his existing workflow. Just to consider that software which does a pretty good job of summarizing his long videos. I had started to post the summary of his videos in the comments to help others (it costs ~$0.70 per video) but they get buried. Maybe he could start pinning a summary and that would keep people who see his videos but quickly click off. I dont know, just throwing out an idea to think about.
Incredibly off topic.
I find Linux development significantly easier due to experience and I think that feeling could be shared by a lot of folks. There’s also value in working with open tools because you can take that knowledge and use it anywhere. If you become knowledgeable in enterprisey stuff you can get stuck doing enterprisey things
If you pick hardware carefully (or write your own drivers, or pay someone else to do it, which is entirely possible in their case), FreeBSD would be an excellent option. I wonder why it isn't more popular among these kinds of manufacturers. (Everyone knows of the two or three major exceptions, which just proves the point.) IMHO it will get there if enough GPL enforcement cases pile up.
You're saying the same thing but with two different outcomes, as if by virtue of using open source tools you're not going to get stuck working at companies that also only use open source tools.
Become experienced in open source tools so that you can work in companies that use open source tools.
Become experienced in closed source tools so that you can work in companies that use closed source tools.
It's the same thing so really it comes down to a matter of preference and experience.
I am pretty much a Windows developer as that's generally been what I've done, and have very little experience writing code for Linux and other operating systems. I could do it in a pinch, and with some time I could adapt and become a more open source based developer, but that is not the environment where I am most productive.
It's the same thing so really it comes down to a matter of preference and experience.
I am pretty much a Windows developer as that's generally been what I've done, and have very little experience writing code for Linux and other operating systems. I could do it in a pinch, and with some time I could adapt and become a more open source based developer, but that is not the environment where I am most productive.
Companies that used closed source tools can also use open source tools and more importantly _any_ company can use open source tools while the same is not true of closed source tools. I don't think it's really symmetric like you say it is.
I do agree it's up to preference and experience though at the end of the day. Having experience in closed source tools can be very valuable because the cost of that knowledge is higher. Not everybody can just tinker with it.
I do agree it's up to preference and experience though at the end of the day. Having experience in closed source tools can be very valuable because the cost of that knowledge is higher. Not everybody can just tinker with it.
Or they could just use a permissively licensed OS, like one of the BSDs. There's no need to use a proprietary OS in order to avoid the GPL, pretty much all the BSDs shun the use of GPL code and they offer similar abilities to Linux.
Generally, but have no direct knowledge of John Deere's situation, Linux is used because it's usually possible to have drivers which are already written for the various hardware which is desired in more embedded systems. Having to write or port something like a wi-fi driver to a different OS is very non-trivial but wi-fi is generally considered table-stakes now for lots of devices. So it saves significant cost and development time to choose Linux simply because you can get off the shelf drivers for your electrical design.
Generally, but have no direct knowledge of John Deere's situation, Linux is used because it's usually possible to have drivers which are already written for the various hardware which is desired in more embedded systems. Having to write or port something like a wi-fi driver to a different OS is very non-trivial but wi-fi is generally considered table-stakes now for lots of devices. So it saves significant cost and development time to choose Linux simply because you can get off the shelf drivers for your electrical design.
I can’t remember clearly, but I think the prior version of the touch screen may have used Windows CE. I’m not sure why Deere pivoted to Linux, but it may have had better support for their custom boards or they might have seen the writing on the wall for Windows CE (according to Wikipedia, its final release was in 2013 while the new touch screen debuted in 2014 if memory serves).
Deere is a big Windows shop and it was not fun trying to develop for Linux in a VMWare VM, and corporate IT seemed to have special prejudice for our unit for deviating from the standard Windows suite.
Deere is a big Windows shop and it was not fun trying to develop for Linux in a VMWare VM, and corporate IT seemed to have special prejudice for our unit for deviating from the standard Windows suite.
There's no longer any such thing as Windows CE. Closest thing would be LTSC IoT, which is still Microsoft Spyware Lite(tm).
If they want a heavyweight modern OS that someone else maintains and that Deere, and not Microsoft, can control, the only real choice is Linux.
If they want a heavyweight modern OS that someone else maintains and that Deere, and not Microsoft, can control, the only real choice is Linux.
As was stated earlier, FreeBSD (or I'll add netbsd as well) certainly is a full fledged OS that would allow free redistribution of all the work without having GPL encumbrance, while allowing any sort of "remote telemetry" desired. And it's free free free, if you ignore that developing for it is possibly more time consuming since you'll want to limit your ecosystem to non-GPL code.
Nevertheless, if I were working through a product that involves "redistribution" of any of it, and I really didn't want to deal with any potential issues with compliance with the GNU requirements, I'd spec out that the whole product runs [free|net]BSD and runs only 3rd party apache/bsd/purchased licensed code/libraries. This isn't really even a difficult option.
Nevertheless, if I were working through a product that involves "redistribution" of any of it, and I really didn't want to deal with any potential issues with compliance with the GNU requirements, I'd spec out that the whole product runs [free|net]BSD and runs only 3rd party apache/bsd/purchased licensed code/libraries. This isn't really even a difficult option.
I'd be worried that I'd have to spend half my time writing hardware drivers.
You'd probably just spend 1/20th of your time looking at hardware BOMs.
Freebsd has pretty good compatibility, and if you're buying in sufficient volumes or making / integrating boards from scratch you can just stick to the paved roads. It may not end up being quite as cheap from a BOM perspective, though.
Freebsd has pretty good compatibility, and if you're buying in sufficient volumes or making / integrating boards from scratch you can just stick to the paved roads. It may not end up being quite as cheap from a BOM perspective, though.
I was wondering the same. I might be misremembering, but I think early versions of the touch screen used Windows CE, and development on the new touchscreen (the only instance of Linux I’m aware of in John Deere’s ag lineup) started sometime around 2010 (depending on when you measure “started”), so Windows CE was still alive, but maybe there was some writing on the wall that it was being shuttered?
You'd think some embedded proprietary RTOS would be ideal
I don't think the linux part runs the machinery itself.
No, it talks to the stuff that runs the machinery which was, and likely still is, JDOS (Deere’s home-grown RTOS). There was some interest in moving to a proprietary OS, but I don’t know if that was ever manifest. From what I remember, the only Linux system in ag equipment was the touch screen on the Command Arm, but maybe the guidance stuff also ran Linux?
Not even proprietary, plenty of RTOS options that are MIT
Software licenses and closed-source software are at odds here. In the FOSS community it is easy to tell who borrowed your code and violated your license. Closed source software can choose to rip off everyone and it gets very difficult to enforce your open source license. Almost a rules for thee but not for me scenario that puts open source at a disadvantage.
I don't understand what's going on here.
The SFC blog post doesn't mention any specific program but, in the article in The Register, the SFC director is quoted talking about Linux in particular. But Linux is just GPLv2, so doesn't have an anti-Tivoisation [1] clause. In other words, you're free to put it on hardware in binary form (even after modifying it) and sell that hardware, and you're under no obligation to give away the source code to it or any of your own software.
On the other hand, I'm sure the director of the SFC knows a lot more about this situation than I do, so I'm sure that there's something I'm missing.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization
The SFC blog post doesn't mention any specific program but, in the article in The Register, the SFC director is quoted talking about Linux in particular. But Linux is just GPLv2, so doesn't have an anti-Tivoisation [1] clause. In other words, you're free to put it on hardware in binary form (even after modifying it) and sell that hardware, and you're under no obligation to give away the source code to it or any of your own software.
On the other hand, I'm sure the director of the SFC knows a lot more about this situation than I do, so I'm sure that there's something I'm missing.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization
That is a misconception, the GPLv2 also provides users the right to modify, rebuild and reinstall software on their devices.
https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t...
However, with both GPLv2 and GPLv3, a vendor of an aggregation of copyleft and proprietary software can legally cause the the proprietary software to stop working when the copyleft software is modified. I think this hasn't been tested in court though, but the license as they are written both allow this. This would essentially brick your car/tractor until you rewrote that proprietary software from scratch.
https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017...
https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t...
However, with both GPLv2 and GPLv3, a vendor of an aggregation of copyleft and proprietary software can legally cause the the proprietary software to stop working when the copyleft software is modified. I think this hasn't been tested in court though, but the license as they are written both allow this. This would essentially brick your car/tractor until you rewrote that proprietary software from scratch.
https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017...
You're right, I had misunderstood. Thanks for those very interesting links.
He can't since he is not the copyright owner of the GPL software. Additionally, he misunderstands what a lawsuit over GPL infringement does. You can not be forced to give out code.
I don't even understand what they are expecting to get. I don't see how being sent a link to https://www.gnu.org/software/bash or similar for the various software that may be installed suddenly makes your life better even though you can just google for it.
I don't even understand what they are expecting to get. I don't see how being sent a link to https://www.gnu.org/software/bash or similar for the various software that may be installed suddenly makes your life better even though you can just google for it.
>He can't since he is not the copyright owner of the GPL software.
There is an ongoing case trying to establish the users right to sue over noncompliance of the GPL, see https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html, but you're right that currently only the copyright holder can sue. edit "can" is the wrong word, "have successfully sued."
That said, there's thousands of copyright holders for Linux, if Rossman isn't one he can probably find one easily.
There is an ongoing case trying to establish the users right to sue over noncompliance of the GPL, see https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html, but you're right that currently only the copyright holder can sue. edit "can" is the wrong word, "have successfully sued."
That said, there's thousands of copyright holders for Linux, if Rossman isn't one he can probably find one easily.
The title is quite different from the content of the video.
His goal is to fund a lawyer to look into the issue. And looks to me he would just like screwing with John Deere.
His goal is to fund a lawyer to look into the issue. And looks to me he would just like screwing with John Deere.
Louis Rossmann? The Louis Rossmann who has been pushing for Right to Repair? The Louis who has been advocating for R2R in electronics, auto, and agriculture sectors, who has been a PITA to politicians for a decade or so now and has most likely never missed a hearing regarding R2R?
That Louis Rossmann would want to mess with John Deere?
He would never!
That Louis Rossmann would want to mess with John Deere?
He would never!
From the register
"Gingerich told us that the most widely-deployed GPL-covered software in Deere machinery is Linux. "As with most Linux distributions, it uses several other programs under copyleft (i.e. right to repair) licenses as well," he said."
definitely just trolling
definitely just trolling
>He can't since he is not the copyright owner of the GPL software.
Isn't the whole point of the GPL that the user has rights to the software?
Isn't the whole point of the GPL that the user has rights to the software?
In reality the license just puts extra restrictions on distribution of the software and how derivative works can be licensed.
The copyright owner is the only person who can sue people for violating the license of the software they created.
Copyright owners are not forced to stop people from infringing their copyrights. If they want they can allow people to infringe their copyright without punishment. Sometimes they just don't care and sometimes copyright infringement can be beneficial for the owner.
The copyright owner is the only person who can sue people for violating the license of the software they created.
Copyright owners are not forced to stop people from infringing their copyrights. If they want they can allow people to infringe their copyright without punishment. Sometimes they just don't care and sometimes copyright infringement can be beneficial for the owner.
> The copyright owner is the only person who can sue people for violating the license of the software they created.
For the copyright violations, yes. But I'd imagine a skilled lawyer could make a suit against a company for a violation of the contract between the consumer and company on the grounds that the consumer knowingly bought a product that included those clauses and the company did not follow through with delivering the product as sold.
For the copyright violations, yes. But I'd imagine a skilled lawyer could make a suit against a company for a violation of the contract between the consumer and company on the grounds that the consumer knowingly bought a product that included those clauses and the company did not follow through with delivering the product as sold.
That wouldn't be a GPL suit then, it would be a warranty suit. John Deere could plausibly just refund someone for their tractor, and continue violating the GPL.
The idea that the GPL is also a contract is being tested in California. So far the federal court (which hears copyright cases) agreed to send the case back to state court (which hears contract cases).
https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html
https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html
"In reality the license just puts extra restrictions on distribution of the software and how derivative works can be licensed."
Actually, copyright is now implicit. There is NO right to distribute software and NO right to create derivative works. Copyright gives those rights exclusively to the copyright holder.
The GPL makes it legally possible to distribute and create derivative works. Without that license, you have no such right, and can be sued (for damages) by the copyright holder. Proving damages can be difficult.
In any case, the license is the only thing that allows that behavior. Without it, there is no right to do it, and thus restrictions are moot.
Actually, copyright is now implicit. There is NO right to distribute software and NO right to create derivative works. Copyright gives those rights exclusively to the copyright holder.
The GPL makes it legally possible to distribute and create derivative works. Without that license, you have no such right, and can be sued (for damages) by the copyright holder. Proving damages can be difficult.
In any case, the license is the only thing that allows that behavior. Without it, there is no right to do it, and thus restrictions are moot.
There is a fun thought experiment where one takes a copyright license and rewrite it in terms of only positive permissions. Since copyright law by default forbids everything, every aspect of a copyright license is a form of granted permission.
The GPL would then be a number of permissions similar to:
You are hereby given permission to give other people a all-permissions-granted patent license of all patents that you own, and along side that license you are given permission to include my copyrighted source code, and optionally in addition to that source code you may then add a compiled version along side that source code.
No restrictions and depending on how one want to interpret "in addition/along side", not even a condition.
The GPL would then be a number of permissions similar to:
You are hereby given permission to give other people a all-permissions-granted patent license of all patents that you own, and along side that license you are given permission to include my copyrighted source code, and optionally in addition to that source code you may then add a compiled version along side that source code.
No restrictions and depending on how one want to interpret "in addition/along side", not even a condition.
> The copyright owner is the only person who can sue people for violating the license of the software they created.
This has not been established. And while there are strong economical interests in this sense… it doesn't necessarily mean they are lawful.
This has not been established. And while there are strong economical interests in this sense… it doesn't necessarily mean they are lawful.
Have fun downvoting… Still doesn't make me wrong.
https://lwn.net/Articles/873415/
https://lwn.net/Articles/873415/
> the user has rights to the software
That's the stated rationale for the license, but not the legal framework that it is recognized under. "Copyleft" licenses are legally copyright licenses, and a violation of the GPL is simply a copyright violation. Whoever bring a suit must have standing to sue for copyright violations.
That's the stated rationale for the license, but not the legal framework that it is recognized under. "Copyleft" licenses are legally copyright licenses, and a violation of the GPL is simply a copyright violation. Whoever bring a suit must have standing to sue for copyright violations.
The idea that the GPL is also a contract is being tested in California. So far the federal court (which hears copyright cases) agreed to send the case back to state court (which hears contract cases).
https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html
https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html
It's being tested, but it remains to be seen what California courts think about that idea, and even if they do recognize it that way, it's not exactly clear how they'd remedy it.
https://corpaccountabilitylab.org/calblog/2022/1/31/sfc-v-vi...
https://corpaccountabilitylab.org/calblog/2022/1/31/sfc-v-vi...
I expect Conservancy will push for either compliance (preferable) or preventing Vizio from using Linux, or potentially assisting Conservancy in going after whichever hardware vendor BSP their violation came from.
Yes, but as the article mentions, those are unlikely even if the court does decide to enforce the contract.
The other things the article mentions aren't actual remedies to the problem of a GPL violation though and as just a third-party beneficiary that is non-profit and who can only get source code benefits, they wouldn't really be entitled to money except maybe their costs in bringing the suit or a refund of their TV purchase. As the post says, the monetary remedy option would also apply to everyone else who bought a TV, or Conservancy could buy another TV and sue again; seems unlikely the court would allow such an unlimited monetary remedy. So the only options are then fixing the compliance, or nothing. But then "court voids contract" doesn't sound like a great headline either, so maybe the specific performance option is the only option. Seems like "court voids third-party beneficiary aspect of contracts" wouldn't be a likely precedent either.
It likely wouldn’t be “court voids contract” it would most likely be “it isn’t a contract”.
It is a bit of a stretch to even say that the GPL even has the required elements of a contract between SFC and Vizio. (And the GPL was never designed to work this way anyway.)
How do you offer someone a contract without ever sending it to them? How do you argue that Visio concurrently offered the terms of the GPL and ignored it? Either there’s an offer or there’s not
It seems to me that Vizio simply ignored the GPL, and the issue is precisely that they didn’t offer it to their customers. Yes, they were supposed to under copyright law, but they didn’t.
At the end of the day, for this to be a valid contract, it’ll have to be shown that:
* Vizio offered the source code to SFC (did this actually happen?)
* SFC accepted that contract (did this happen?)
* there was an exchange of value (this one is easy: the TV)
* that they were capable of entering into the contract (again, easy)
* that there was a meeting of the minds (it might be a defense here that Vizio was just blindly copy and pasting shit!)
It is a bit of a stretch to even say that the GPL even has the required elements of a contract between SFC and Vizio. (And the GPL was never designed to work this way anyway.)
How do you offer someone a contract without ever sending it to them? How do you argue that Visio concurrently offered the terms of the GPL and ignored it? Either there’s an offer or there’s not
It seems to me that Vizio simply ignored the GPL, and the issue is precisely that they didn’t offer it to their customers. Yes, they were supposed to under copyright law, but they didn’t.
At the end of the day, for this to be a valid contract, it’ll have to be shown that:
* Vizio offered the source code to SFC (did this actually happen?)
* SFC accepted that contract (did this happen?)
* there was an exchange of value (this one is easy: the TV)
* that they were capable of entering into the contract (again, easy)
* that there was a meeting of the minds (it might be a defense here that Vizio was just blindly copy and pasting shit!)
If there is one, the "GPL contract" in the case would be between Vizio and Linux copyright holders, not Vizio and SFC, since SFC are a third-party in this case.
You are indeed right that Vizio can probably get around SFC current suit by arguing that they did not enter into the GPL contract and just deliberately decided to use the code without a copyright license, but that then opens them up to higher damages under the inevitable copyright lawsuit.
You are indeed right that Vizio can probably get around SFC current suit by arguing that they did not enter into the GPL contract and just deliberately decided to use the code without a copyright license, but that then opens them up to higher damages under the inevitable copyright lawsuit.
[deleted]
Does he own a green and yellow tractor?
Why are you confrontational? Maybe he does.
Because it's but zanyism unless he does. Simply put, GPL does not allow you to request "source code" for what you never used.
> Simply put, GPL does not allow you to request "source code" for what you never used.
Sort of. The relevant section is:
> 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
> 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,
> b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
If the company elects to go with option b, then yes - the GPL does allow you to request "source code" for what you never used.
Sort of. The relevant section is:
> 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
> 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,
> b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
If the company elects to go with option b, then yes - the GPL does allow you to request "source code" for what you never used.
If they have not done a) or b) then I guess he cannot request b) because they have not done the written offer, at which point it is up to the copyright owner to require that they do a) or b) or what?
Provide damages of some sort, stop distributing program?
Provide damages of some sort, stop distributing program?
> Provide damages of some sort, stop distributing program?
This sounds like the most likely outcome it this is successful.
This sounds like the most likely outcome it this is successful.
In principle, maybe, but in practice, it's very hard to imagine that you would have any standing to bring a suit as a third party.
If you and I sign a contract whereby you agree to pay 5$ to any stranger who calls you some name, I very much doubt a stranger who does so and doesn't receive their dollars would have any right to sue you. Of course, I could sue you for failing to perform the agreed contract.
If you and I sign a contract whereby you agree to pay 5$ to any stranger who calls you some name, I very much doubt a stranger who does so and doesn't receive their dollars would have any right to sue you. Of course, I could sue you for failing to perform the agreed contract.
The idea that the GPL is also a contract is being tested in California. So far the federal court (which hears copyright cases) agreed to send the case back to state court (which hears contract cases).
https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html
https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html
It's still a contract between the copyright holder and the redistributor, not between the redistributor and anyone in the world.
It's also not a contract between the distributor and the person receiving a copy from them, since contracts can't be automatically assigned to pieces of property, they must happen between people.
I very much doubt the SFC's case will succeed. I fully expect that they will be found not to have any standing to sue as someone who is in no way a party of the GPL. By the way, it's obvious that it wouldn't be tried by a copyright court, as the SFC claims no copyright over the code in question. I expect that the lower court will now confirm that they have no standing under contract law either, and the case will be dismissed.
Note that I fully support the idea of a right to repair. I just don't think it can be achieved in this way, and believe instead it must be enshrined in legislation and state regulations, not crafty uses of copyright law.
It's also not a contract between the distributor and the person receiving a copy from them, since contracts can't be automatically assigned to pieces of property, they must happen between people.
I very much doubt the SFC's case will succeed. I fully expect that they will be found not to have any standing to sue as someone who is in no way a party of the GPL. By the way, it's obvious that it wouldn't be tried by a copyright court, as the SFC claims no copyright over the code in question. I expect that the lower court will now confirm that they have no standing under contract law either, and the case will be dismissed.
Note that I fully support the idea of a right to repair. I just don't think it can be achieved in this way, and believe instead it must be enshrined in legislation and state regulations, not crafty uses of copyright law.
Sure, in this case Conservancy aren't a party to the GPL contract, but as a recipient of GPLed binary code from Vizio they are a third-party beneficiary of the contract between Vizio and copyright holders.
Actually Conservancy also are representatives of copyright holders in Linux and other software used on Vizio devices. So if they lose the third-party beneficiary suit, there will be a copyright angle they can pursue as well.
GPL lawsuits aren't about hardware repair, they are about software repair and the rights given to end-users by the GPL license/contract. You don't need source code to replace broken components on a tractor, you need repairer/vendor software that performs pairing of DRM-locked parts.
Actually Conservancy also are representatives of copyright holders in Linux and other software used on Vizio devices. So if they lose the third-party beneficiary suit, there will be a copyright angle they can pursue as well.
GPL lawsuits aren't about hardware repair, they are about software repair and the rights given to end-users by the GPL license/contract. You don't need source code to replace broken components on a tractor, you need repairer/vendor software that performs pairing of DRM-locked parts.
[deleted]
Because performative YouTube outrage shouldn’t be commended.
I also found his rant videos not to my taste. He is a pretty abrasive person and he seems to spend most of his time making rant videos these days.
Having said all that, I support the right to repair movement. I commend him for being a gadfly and a leader on this issue. The right of ownership of the things you buy and the right to repair what you own are extremely important, fundamental rights. Without them, we are all reduced to tenants in a neo-feudalist dystopia.
Having said all that, I support the right to repair movement. I commend him for being a gadfly and a leader on this issue. The right of ownership of the things you buy and the right to repair what you own are extremely important, fundamental rights. Without them, we are all reduced to tenants in a neo-feudalist dystopia.
He is a long-time right-to-repair activist. Why "performative"?
He does positive things sometimes as well, he said that it’s important to not only cover the negative things but also the positive things but that when he does people call him a shill
Maybe he bought a replacement board computer and can't get it to run doom. All he needs to own to demand source code is the part that runs the code.
That said, he doesn't make clear what, if any, John Deer hardware he owns. I don't think he's the right person to sue.
However, he could use his influence and audience to help any farmer willing to take on John Deer to get a lawsuit together.
That said, he doesn't make clear what, if any, John Deer hardware he owns. I don't think he's the right person to sue.
However, he could use his influence and audience to help any farmer willing to take on John Deer to get a lawsuit together.
True. Though I'd argue that maybe he'd need to be a John Deere equipment owner to sue (or partner with one I guess)
> You can not be forced to give out code.
Can you explain this in more detail ? I thought that was the case.
Can you explain this in more detail ? I thought that was the case.
If you violate the license that allows you to use some code, and the license says that any violation terminates the license, then you are technically stealing the code by using it (basic copyright infringement). So you could be sued for that, in the same way you could be sued for using any code you aren't allowed to use. There would be damages awarded in fines, and maybe even prison time in theory.
As an extreme example, if I wrote a software license that makes you my lifelong slave for using my software, and you use it without becoming my slave, then no judge is going to enforce slavery upon you. But they might fine you for stealing my software.
As an extreme example, if I wrote a software license that makes you my lifelong slave for using my software, and you use it without becoming my slave, then no judge is going to enforce slavery upon you. But they might fine you for stealing my software.
No, you are not technically stealing; you are technically infringing copyright. I appreciate you put that in brackets, but it still isn't stealing (technically or otherwise).
You are totally right, I was trying to ELI5 my language but ended up taking it too far.
The judge would not order to release the code, but John Deere could likely avoid paying (most of) the fine it they instead decided to release the source code.
Which wouldn't help much if they keep their hardware encrypted and locked, de facto preventing users from checking that the hardware actually runs the released code, therefore giving no guarantees against planned obsolescence and other tricks.
That's not the purpose of the GPLv2. If JD published their source code they would fulfill all the obligations of the license. Doesn't matter if their hardware is locked down.
That is a misconception, the GPLv2 also provides users the right to modify, rebuild and reinstall software on their devices.
https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t...
However, with both GPLv2 and GPLv3, a vendor of an aggregation of copyleft and proprietary software can legally cause the the proprietary software to stop working when the copyleft software is modified. I think this hasn't been tested in court though, but the license as they are written both allow this. This would essentially brick your car/tractor until you rewrote that proprietary software from scratch.
https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017...
https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t...
However, with both GPLv2 and GPLv3, a vendor of an aggregation of copyleft and proprietary software can legally cause the the proprietary software to stop working when the copyleft software is modified. I think this hasn't been tested in court though, but the license as they are written both allow this. This would essentially brick your car/tractor until you rewrote that proprietary software from scratch.
https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017...
In “Intelectual property and open source” an alternative interpretation of GPL is given as a contract due to way it is written. So the code company is shipping along with GPL can be looked as violation if I understood that correctly. This is the stick which makes Qt business model with LGPL to work.
The difference is that I don't think you're able to sell yourself into slavery so that contract is void.
IANAL but i suspect the slave thing would be void but otherwise the license would still stand. Otherwise people could bury ridiculous clauses in licenses to trick people into not really having a license.
> But they might fine you for stealing my software.
I don't think it's that easy. ;)
Pretty much only 3 things can happen if you violate someone's software copyright and are sued for it.
- You could have to stop violating the person's copyright.
- You could have to pay damages
- You could have to go to jail
Example: Lets say Lindows is a piece of software whose license only lets you distribute it in Louisiana. If you start distributing it in California and get sued you don't have to do something like transport all your clients to Louisiana and distribute the software to them a second time. You just will be prevented from doing any further distribution in California.
- You could have to stop violating the person's copyright.
- You could have to pay damages
- You could have to go to jail
Example: Lets say Lindows is a piece of software whose license only lets you distribute it in Louisiana. If you start distributing it in California and get sued you don't have to do something like transport all your clients to Louisiana and distribute the software to them a second time. You just will be prevented from doing any further distribution in California.
A 4th option is to reach a settlement with the author agreeing to something else in lieu of the statutory punishments. This has been used to get source code released and bring the infringer into compliance.
I'm not a lawyer, but isn't that what "Specific performance" is?
"Specific performance is an equitable remedy in the law of contract, whereby a court issues an order requiring a party to perform a specific act, such as to complete performance of the contract."[1]
I understand that you are saying that it does not apply in copyright case, but why?
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_performance
"Specific performance is an equitable remedy in the law of contract, whereby a court issues an order requiring a party to perform a specific act, such as to complete performance of the contract."[1]
I understand that you are saying that it does not apply in copyright case, but why?
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_performance
Don't you still have to pay damages and maybe you have to do the time
> maybe you have to do the time
The only time anyone ever "do[es] time" is in criminal matters. Copyright infringement is a civil matter, and, in general, the only remedy the courts can provide is monetary. However, refusing to abide by the courts' orders can land you in contempt of court, which could (won't always) involve jail.
The only time anyone ever "do[es] time" is in criminal matters. Copyright infringement is a civil matter, and, in general, the only remedy the courts can provide is monetary. However, refusing to abide by the courts' orders can land you in contempt of court, which could (won't always) involve jail.
My understanding is that in the United States of America copyright law is bith a matter of civil law and criminal law, as the tragic case of mr Aaron Swartz, that was threatened with fines of up to $100k & 10 years of jail for each copyright infringement violation.
I do believe that the US law is Draconian, but you can't say "oh Swartz! yeah just a guy, let's bully him to oblivion with hundreds of years of jail time and million on fines" while at the same time say "Oh John Deere, that's a corporation, please follow the licensing of the software you use". It doesn't seem right to me.
I do believe that the US law is Draconian, but you can't say "oh Swartz! yeah just a guy, let's bully him to oblivion with hundreds of years of jail time and million on fines" while at the same time say "Oh John Deere, that's a corporation, please follow the licensing of the software you use". It doesn't seem right to me.
Seems like they can also pay damages and stop distribution of the product until it the infringement is removed, although in prior cases GPL often has been complied with in settlements
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_license_litigati...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_license_litigati...
They may be forced to pay a fine to the authors / court / customers and release a version without the infringement for example.
The court will force you to come back into compliance with the license. The GPL says that if you distribute binaries, you must distribute source. There are two different ways to comply with that. You can start distributing source, but you can also stop distributing binaries.
Yeah that was my impression too. Or are all these open source licenses essentially toilet paper?
The point is that you don't have a right to distribute the software unless you give out source code. However, that doesn't mean that a court can you force you to give out the source code - they are far more likely to force you to stop distribution altogether, and pay damages for whatever occurred.
Whether any company in it's right mind would find it preferable to settle the case by abiding by the terms of the license or not is debatable of course.
Whether any company in it's right mind would find it preferable to settle the case by abiding by the terms of the license or not is debatable of course.
I don’t know about standing but in a the face of enough instances of copyright violations, it is pretty easy to imagine a scenario where a company was more or less forced to agree to distribute in a deal in lieu of punitive damages?
If he's a user he can request the source code which they'll be required to provide per the terms of the GPL. The litigation kicks in if they don't comply.
Whether Rossmann is the copyright owner or not is a minor point given he could throw his money and expertise behind whoever is.
Whether Rossmann is the copyright owner or not is a minor point given he could throw his money and expertise behind whoever is.
>"He can't since he is not the copyright owner of the GPL software."
I am pretty sure he can convince copyright owner go give him power of attorney for specific case.
I am pretty sure he can convince copyright owner go give him power of attorney for specific case.
He may not have standing due to not owning a tractor also.
He can fund those who do though.
Those with standing can do it on their own. In fact they seem to be the ones that have gotten it this far in the courts on their own.
Legal costs are high, I expect they would welcome any funding they can get, both small donations from individual contributors and larger grants from Rossman and others. I definitely know that Conservancy would welcome funding.
https://sfconservancy.org/donate/
https://sfconservancy.org/donate/
> You can not be forced to give out code.
You can be forced to do whatever you agreed to do in a binding contract, if the action or contract isn't illegal.
You don't present any basis for your claim. A court case like this could settle the matter.
Since the GPL requires the derivative source to be released, anyone has standing to sue since anyone can request that code.
You can be forced to do whatever you agreed to do in a binding contract, if the action or contract isn't illegal.
You don't present any basis for your claim. A court case like this could settle the matter.
Since the GPL requires the derivative source to be released, anyone has standing to sue since anyone can request that code.
If you're violating your obligations under the GPL, then that means you no longer have a license to the software, and are committing copyright infringement by continuing to distribute it. When you commit copyright infringement and used to have a license, the court doesn't demand that you do things listed on the license you used to have, it just fines you and tells you to stop committing copyright infringement.
The GPL is not a magic spell; you can't use it to force your enemies to do things they don't want to do. As a copyright license, it is used to protect your own work from being abused, and nothing else. And it is an agreement between the licensor and the licensee, irrespective of who else it benefits, so only they have standing.
The GPL is not a magic spell; you can't use it to force your enemies to do things they don't want to do. As a copyright license, it is used to protect your own work from being abused, and nothing else. And it is an agreement between the licensor and the licensee, irrespective of who else it benefits, so only they have standing.
> The GPL is not a magic spell; you can't use it to force your enemies to do things they don't want to do.
On the other hand, court orders in many ways are magic spells, and there are circumstances where you can get the court to order Specific Performance as remedy. Courts don't love Specific Performance, you won't get far asking a court for this when monetary compensation seems effective, but sometimes the Court can see that's not an appropriate remedy and will order Specific Performance.
Specific Performance requires that you do what the court demands, if you won't do what they demand that's contempt for which you can be imprisoned.
On the other hand, court orders in many ways are magic spells, and there are circumstances where you can get the court to order Specific Performance as remedy. Courts don't love Specific Performance, you won't get far asking a court for this when monetary compensation seems effective, but sometimes the Court can see that's not an appropriate remedy and will order Specific Performance.
Specific Performance requires that you do what the court demands, if you won't do what they demand that's contempt for which you can be imprisoned.
The idea that the GPL is also a contract (that also benefits third-parties) is being tested in California. So far the federal court (which hears copyright cases) agreed to send the case back to state court (which hears contract cases).
https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html
https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html
I'm not so sure about that. The GPL does spell out the rights for end users pretty clearly, but the terms being violated apply between the copyright holder and the company violating the terms. Violating "you can use this code with these conditions" means you can't use the code (and may need to pay damages to the people you've stolen the code from), not that you're necessarily forced to apply those conditions.
IANAL but I think you need to the a copyright holder to effectively enforce these terms through the court.
If you violate a contract with your employer and don't deliver a product in time, I don't think the customers can sue you. Instead, as far as I know, the customers will sue the company and the company will sue you to cover the costs.
IANAL but I think you need to the a copyright holder to effectively enforce these terms through the court.
If you violate a contract with your employer and don't deliver a product in time, I don't think the customers can sue you. Instead, as far as I know, the customers will sue the company and the company will sue you to cover the costs.
> Since the GPL requires the derivative source to be released, anyone has standing to sue since anyone can request that code.
This is definitely wrong. If they refuse to provide source code, they are not abiding by the terms of the license, and thus presumably have no right to distribute that code. However, unless you are a copyright holder of the code they are distributing, there is no harm to you as a third party if the distributor is not respecting the terms of the license of the creator.
At best, if they lose a lawsuit with the copyright holder and are forced to stop distributing the software and/or recall already distributed versions, you could then sue them for damages caused by their irresponsible behavior.
This is definitely wrong. If they refuse to provide source code, they are not abiding by the terms of the license, and thus presumably have no right to distribute that code. However, unless you are a copyright holder of the code they are distributing, there is no harm to you as a third party if the distributor is not respecting the terms of the license of the creator.
At best, if they lose a lawsuit with the copyright holder and are forced to stop distributing the software and/or recall already distributed versions, you could then sue them for damages caused by their irresponsible behavior.
> If they refuse to provide source code, they are not abiding by the terms of the license
This is at best a simplification. The most common case is that a company has two options: Either provide the source code alongside every copy of the program, so that every recipient of the program has the source code already, or, alongside the program, provide a written offer, valid for three years, to provide source code on request. This offer, while required if the company chooses this option, is not part of the license! If a company does not provide source code on request, they have broken the promise provided by the offer, not the license, and can be sued for simply failing to uphold their promise. It then does not matter what the original licence says, or who the copyright holders are.
And, of course, if a company provides neither the source code, nor such an offer of source code, they have already broken the license, and can be sued immediately; there is no need for anyone to request the source code. Doing so is just something many people do as an act of pure courtesy.
This is at best a simplification. The most common case is that a company has two options: Either provide the source code alongside every copy of the program, so that every recipient of the program has the source code already, or, alongside the program, provide a written offer, valid for three years, to provide source code on request. This offer, while required if the company chooses this option, is not part of the license! If a company does not provide source code on request, they have broken the promise provided by the offer, not the license, and can be sued for simply failing to uphold their promise. It then does not matter what the original licence says, or who the copyright holders are.
And, of course, if a company provides neither the source code, nor such an offer of source code, they have already broken the license, and can be sued immediately; there is no need for anyone to request the source code. Doing so is just something many people do as an act of pure courtesy.
> If a company does not provide source code on request, they have broken the promise provided by the offer, not the license, and can be sued for simply failing to uphold their promise.
By whom? In what way is the promise binding on that company? I can see some sense if the offer is provided to anyone receiving the binary from the company, in which case you could argue that it is a part of the distribution contract between the company and the recipient. But a third party doesn't seem to have any relationship, even if the promise nominally mentions ant third party.
At best, you could argue that the original receiver of the code could sue the company for not providing code to a third party as per the promise.
> And, of course, if a company provides neither the source code, nor such an offer of source code, they have already broken the license, and can be sued immediately
Yes, but only by a copyright holder of that source code, not by a third party (not even by the person who received the binary code without a copy of the source or a promise to provide it on request).
By the way, it should be noted that, per Stallman, it's perfectly valid for a company to sell GPL-based binaries and only distribute the source code to those who buy the binaries (though of course they must be allowed to distribute it further). So it's absolutely clear that a random person who neither purchased the product nor holds copyright in the GPL work has no standing whatsoever.
By whom? In what way is the promise binding on that company? I can see some sense if the offer is provided to anyone receiving the binary from the company, in which case you could argue that it is a part of the distribution contract between the company and the recipient. But a third party doesn't seem to have any relationship, even if the promise nominally mentions ant third party.
At best, you could argue that the original receiver of the code could sue the company for not providing code to a third party as per the promise.
> And, of course, if a company provides neither the source code, nor such an offer of source code, they have already broken the license, and can be sued immediately
Yes, but only by a copyright holder of that source code, not by a third party (not even by the person who received the binary code without a copy of the source or a promise to provide it on request).
By the way, it should be noted that, per Stallman, it's perfectly valid for a company to sell GPL-based binaries and only distribute the source code to those who buy the binaries (though of course they must be allowed to distribute it further). So it's absolutely clear that a random person who neither purchased the product nor holds copyright in the GPL work has no standing whatsoever.
> By whom? In what way is the promise binding on that company?
Are promises not binding? Can a company not get sued for breaking a promise?
(I agree with the rest of your comment.)
Are promises not binding? Can a company not get sued for breaking a promise?
(I agree with the rest of your comment.)
> "When Deere does reply (we have heard from others that their legitimate requests for source code have been met with silence), they have always failed to include the 'scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable,' per GPLv2," Gingerich told The Register.
source code modifications are required to be provided, build tools which are not modified from GPL source are not. is this really what someone is going to sue over?
source code modifications are required to be provided, build tools which are not modified from GPL source are not. is this really what someone is going to sue over?
He has standing to bring a suit?
He'll probably just fund those who do, he alludes to that in the video, says he has money in an account.
This is beyond crazy. I can't image even trying to be a farmer without spending a good portion of my time repairing my tools, fences, etc.
But why didn't he sue Xiaomi?
Why?
Life is pain and unanswered questions...
I'm somehow confronted with this with my VW car. The battery is close to dead, and I want to replace it. I can do that. Yet the car needs to be informed that it now has a new battery in order optimize its power management (it's not an electric car, it's basically the most simple modern VW).
I need to go to the dealer and have them change the battery for me and reset the battery status, which is maybe 100€ in addition to the battery cost.
If the source code would be publicly accessible, probably a cheap OBD-2 adapter would be capable of doing this.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej1MmjCPYqU&t=197s