Since we are on the topic: I wish Tesla would finally live up to their obligations and release the GPLed parts of their product (that includes, at a minimum, the Linux kernel with all modifications).
As far as I know, it's always been that if you distribute something with GPL code, you must make the source available to anyone that requests it. Not only to your customers. One can change though, for the costs of making it available.
The thing you mentioned is applied to licensing. A person is only under obligations by the license if he/she distributes anything that uses GPL code. If people only run a piece of GPLed software, or if they make changes only for personal use, they're not under GPL license obligations.
That's only true if you're operating under section 3(b) of the GPLv2: explicitly offering source via mail order. If you offer GPLv2 source via mail order, you have to honor mail order requests from anyone. However, you aren't required to offer the source via mail order at all, as per section 3.
In the GPLv3, the analogous section, 6(b), is actually further constrained: if you explicitly offer GPLv3 source via mail order, you're only obliged to honor requests from people that have the object code in their possession.
I've replied with my understanding of it in more details to your other comment at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5030865 (in case other people want to follow the conversation).
That aside, what do you hope to gain from their GPL compliance? Pop open the GPL compliance kit from, say, a Netgear router and you get a kernel, a few drivers, and the toolchain used to build it. And BusyBox. How useful will the drivers for things in a Tesla be to you? Do you own a Tesla, or is it just curiosity?
If it's curiosity, well, I wish we weren't enforcing that with the GPL.
It's simple, either you comply with the GPL or you don't distribute GPL-based code. As an author of GPL licensed software, I think it's pretty damned arrogant for someone like you to imply curiosity isn't a good enough reason to get back modifications in accordance with the chosen license. Who are you to judge? And anyway, what reason could possibly be more worthy than curiosity?
It's the authors' choice, not the peanut gallery's; and if they hadn't intended for all distributed modifications to be made available under the GPL, they would have chosen BSD or another license instead. And if you don't like that, too bad.
And while I do not have standing to request GPL licensed code from Tesla, they have a legal obligation to either distribute that code directly, or a provide a transferable offer to distribute that code, to their customers. Code properly distributed as such inevitably would make it back out into the wider open source community; this is the design of the GPL. If Tesla currently does not meet this obligation under the GPL, that is a problem.
> Code properly distributed as such inevitably would make it back out into the wider open source community; this is the design of the GPL
The design of the GPL is to protect the users rights to use, access and modify the software in perpetuity. There is no provision in the license that modifiers have to share modified works with the author specifically - they just have to make it accessible to the people they are distributing it to.
Being the author of a GPL work and wanting access to those changes because you are merely curious or want those changes to be merged into the original work, the unfortunate reality is that the GPL will do squat for you in that regard.
Nope, if you distribute something with GPL code, you must make the source available to anyone that requests it. Not only to your customers. And you can't put any kind of filter on reasons for the request.
One can only charge a "reasonable" amount for the work of making it available (CD, hosting, etc).
The only corner case I see is if they claim that they are selling a device (like the whole car) as a single package and there is only a single package of code along with it.
That's patently false for both the GPLv2 and GPLv3. For v2, see section 3. Only one of the three compliance options requires universal fulfillment of requests for source.
GPLv3 has no similar requirement. The closest analogue to v2's section 3(b) has its scope explicitly limited to "anyone who possesses the object code."
I states that distribution of binaries must include either: a) Complete corresponding machine-readable source code; or b) Written offer to give any third party a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code;
Item c) applies only to non-commercial cases, which is not the case here.
So if they are not doing a), they need to do b). And written does not imply regular mail (which you mentioned in your other reply), it can be anything on their web page or an e-mail.
If every distributed copy includes full source, then that's covered. Otherwise any request must be fulfilled, as there should be a written notice offering it somewhere. There is no limitation to who can request it.
GPLv3 on the other hand is more "legalese" and harder to read. Section 6 mentions possession of object code only for item b), which is the case for "written notice". So it will only apply if there is such written notice upon distribution.
Item c) is only for non-commercial cases. Items d) and e) require making source electronically available. Item a) says that if it is a physical product it needs to include full sources in some media.
If the distributor doesn't do d) or e), they need to do a) or b).
So, nowhere it is "patently false". Only if using GPLv3, and the binaries being provided along with a physical product, then there is no obligation to provide the code to any request.
The "corner case" I mentioned in my comment is related to item a). The limitation on item b) is actually something I had never noticed before.
But I have no idea which license version Tesla uses, so I don't know if this applies.
PS: Just to clarify one thing: trying to download a file from a URL or via P2P also constitutes a request. It's just on another media.
I mention mail order because, oddly, the GPLv2 actually requires that you provide source via postal mail to people if you're opting to comply under 3(b). That subsection states that in response to a written offer, you must provide source "on a medium customarily used for software interchange." That's interpreted by the FSF's GPL FAQ as "if any [third party] would rather get the source on physical media by mail, you are required to provide that" [0].
There's an additional entry in the FAQ [1] specifically covering the definition of third parties for GPLv2: "If you choose to provide source through a written offer, then anybody who requests the source from you is entitled to receive it."
So written-offer-for-source appears to be the exceptional case for GPLv2: you have to provide it on physical media, and to anyone that asks. But if you choose to distribute source alongside the binaries, per section 3(a), then you're free from that obligation.
Given that GPLv3's section 6(b) intentionally constrained this to only people who possess the object code, it feels like the universality of v2's section 3(b) is a bit of a fluke, and not representative of the goals of the GPL. Thus, in responding to your claim that "you must make the source available to anyone that requests it. Not only to your customers." I'd argue that the GPLv2 clearly and explicitly allows you to only make source available to your customers, if you comply with 3(a).
[0]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq#DistributeWithSourceOnI... [1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq#WhatDoesWrittenOfferVal...
Heres the problem: they employ a dozen of people that know very well of the obligations under the GPL. They use GPLed software in core parts of their products. There are possibly thousands of copyright holders for the used GPL software. Taken together, thats a highly combustible mix.