Hacker News Reader

Comment by Scarblac | Hacker News Reader

So is it possible, if you find some bug in the car's software, to fix it using this source and run the fixed code in the car?

Because that was RMS' original motivation, that he couldn't fix the bug in his printer.

View on HN

No.

The GPL doesn't have a (meaningful) mandate that the user be able to replace the software that is under the GPL. Only that the source be made available.

This was fine in the 70s/80s when mainframes were the ruling class. Roughly a femtosecond after the market for embedded machines came along where the person setting up the system wasn't expected to have to compile the runtime environment, that died. Somewhere around THERAC-1 and the Altair.

GPL v3 was specifically written to address this. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization#GNU_GPLv3

That's why quite a few new products are still using old GPL v2 licensed software.

It should be noted that the Tivoization clause in GPLv3 is pretty narrow. It only covers software that you acquire in the same transaction in which you acquire the locked down hardware.

For embedded systems (like a TiVo or a car) there's no other software being installed.

That "narrow" case is the entire case.

I'm currently working on a product for a well-known company and there's a corporate ban on GPLv3. And we do get audited.

> For embedded systems (like a TiVo or a car) there's no other software being installed.

For now anyway. I would be surprised if cars do not end up with apps. The car will come with the base software installed and then you can later buy apps for your car from an app store run by the car maker.

The high adoption rate of CarPlay and Android Auto by the car makers leads me to believe they have zero interest in doing this.

It also applies only to "“User Product” is either (1) a “consumer product”, which means any tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling."

So it would apply here if the cars software were under GPL v3?

that would be good enough to apply to cars

> That's why quite a few new products are still using old GPL v2 licensed software.

Like how macOS ships with bash 2.7 or whatever

That would an odd reason, because Apple could comply easily. Source and development tools to translate them into binary are readily available. And you can still install software that you yourself built without a hassle last I checked.

Seither using GPLv2 or replacements using BSD software (see for instance how MacOS replaced GPL Software)

No, they need to make the software available, and you can use it in your own car if you will share your changes as well. But you can't run the "fixed" code in the car (ie, disable rev limits / speed restrictions etc). That said, "tuners" do sometimes flash updated settings, but it normally voids the warranty.

You can run the "fixed" code even if you don't share your changes.

But if you share your changed code's binaries, you are bound to share the source for them.

No comment on street legality.

Fair point, at least in tech this allows a lot of "SAAS" companies to keep changes private. Not sure how that would work with a car on a road driven by a user? That feels like distribution to me.

It might also violate your local emissions laws, among others.

That is actually the point of a lot of the hacks. For truck racing normally you remove emissions controls than reflash engine parameters to take advantage of whatever benefits. There is a bit of excitement for "right to repair" laws as it may let folks keep warranties and/or make it easier to bypass various protections and limits.

Technically, it's more "right to modify" or "own" than "right to repair". But we can hope... )

Reply on news.ycombinator.com