[HN Gopher] Louis Rossmann could sue John Deere for GPL violatio...
___________________________________________________________________
Louis Rossmann could sue John Deere for GPL violation [video]
Author : theden
Score : 311 points
Date : 2023-03-21 08:31 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.youtube.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.youtube.com)
| qwertox wrote:
| From the referenced video "CT Wilson: the delegate blocking Right
| to Repair in Maryland" [0]: "You don't need the source code, to
| change your battery, ...".
|
| 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 100EUR 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
| the_pwner224 wrote:
| 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.
| OJFord wrote:
| 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_.
| consp wrote:
| 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.
| lukeschlather wrote:
| > 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.
| dmonitor wrote:
| from hundred dollar hardware and software license to "just
| put this image on your raspi"
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| 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?
| yardie wrote:
| 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.
| olyjohn wrote:
| 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?
| yardie wrote:
| 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.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| 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.
| Arrath wrote:
| 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?
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| 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 :)
| 20after4 wrote:
| 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.
| qikInNdOutReply wrote:
| Yes. Why not have a texeditor for a config save file in the
| radio?
| Ccecil wrote:
| 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
| noughtme wrote:
| Are car batteries smart now? How would your car know what
| brand of battery you put in?
| sithadmin wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| Ccecil wrote:
| 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.
| i80and wrote:
| 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.
| vitaflo wrote:
| Yes OBDEleven can code the battery in your VW.
| charcircuit wrote:
| 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.
| detourdog wrote:
| He may not have standing due to not owning a tractor also.
| pabs3 wrote:
| He can fund those who do though.
| detourdog wrote:
| 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.
| pabs3 wrote:
| 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/
| LelouBil wrote:
| > You can not be forced to give out code.
|
| Can you explain this in more detail ? I thought that was the
| case.
| Drakim wrote:
| 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.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| 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.
| andreareina wrote:
| The difference is that I don't think you're able to sell
| yourself into slavery so that contract is void.
| afiori wrote:
| 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.
| squarefoot wrote:
| 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.
| the_pwner224 wrote:
| 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.
| pabs3 wrote:
| 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...
| MrGilbert wrote:
| > But they might fine you for stealing my software. I don't
| think it's that easy. ;)
| hgomersall wrote:
| 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).
| Drakim wrote:
| You are totally right, I was trying to ELI5 my language
| but ended up taking it too far.
| JanisErdmanis wrote:
| 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.
| GlacierFox wrote:
| Yeah that was my impression too. Or are all these open source
| licenses essentially toilet paper?
| tsimionescu wrote:
| 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.
| nix23 wrote:
| [dead]
| viraptor wrote:
| They may be forced to pay a fine to the authors / court /
| customers and release a version without the infringement for
| example.
| charcircuit wrote:
| 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.
| phkahler wrote:
| 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.
| elkos wrote:
| Don't you still have to pay damages and maybe you have to
| do the time
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| > 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.
| krisoft wrote:
| 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
| kube-system wrote:
| 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.
| f_devd wrote:
| 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.
| ..
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| >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.
| rileymat2 wrote:
| 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?
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| > 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.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| > 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.
| teddyh wrote:
| > _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.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| > 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.
| teddyh wrote:
| > _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.)
| pie_flavor wrote:
| 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.
| pabs3 wrote:
| 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
| tialaramex wrote:
| > 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.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| 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.
| FpUser wrote:
| >"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.
| spyremeown wrote:
| >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?
| raverbashing wrote:
| 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)
| markdown wrote:
| Does he own a green and yellow tractor?
| jeroenhd wrote:
| 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.
| spyremeown wrote:
| Why are you confrontational? Maybe he does.
| remix2000 wrote:
| Because it's but zanyism unless he does. Simply put, GPL
| does not allow you to request "source code" for what you
| never used.
| nordsieck wrote:
| > 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.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| 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?
| afiori wrote:
| > Provide damages of some sort, stop distributing
| program?
|
| This sounds like the most likely outcome it this is
| successful.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| 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.
| pabs3 wrote:
| 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
| tsimionescu wrote:
| 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.
| pabs3 wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| lobstrosity420 wrote:
| Because performative YouTube outrage shouldn't be
| commended.
| chongli wrote:
| 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.
| circuit10 wrote:
| 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
| andrepd wrote:
| He is a long-time right-to-repair activist. Why
| "performative"?
| charcircuit wrote:
| 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.
| ratboy666 wrote:
| "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.
| belorn wrote:
| 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.
| bombolo wrote:
| > 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.
| bombolo wrote:
| Have fun downvoting... Still doesn't make me wrong.
|
| https://lwn.net/Articles/873415/
| rileymat2 wrote:
| > 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.
| kube-system wrote:
| 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.
| pabs3 wrote:
| 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
| kube-system wrote:
| > 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.
| pabs3 wrote:
| 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
| kube-system wrote:
| 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...
| pabs3 wrote:
| 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.
| kube-system wrote:
| Yes, but as the article mentions, those are unlikely even
| if the court does decide to enforce the contract.
| pabs3 wrote:
| 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.
| tjpnz wrote:
| 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.
| Timshel wrote:
| 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.
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| 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!
| heywhatupboys wrote:
| 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
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| 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.
| lakecresva wrote:
| > 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.
| croutonwagon wrote:
| Is owning a tractor not considered real property?
| rtkwe wrote:
| No 'real property' is a legal term of art referring
| principally to land and buildings.
| NoZebra120vClip wrote:
| 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?
| Kranar wrote:
| No, it's real as in real estate.
| gregmac wrote:
| > 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?
| lakecresva wrote:
| 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.
| yencabulator wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| > 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.
| bradleyjg wrote:
| 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.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| You'd think specific performance would be the right
| remedy in the case of a GPL breach since no money is
| involved really.
| ericpauley wrote:
| 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.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| 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.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| 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.
| ericpauley wrote:
| 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.
| data-abuse wrote:
| 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.
| lakecresva wrote:
| 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).
| cbolton wrote:
| This could be messy to implement since the guilty party could
| have other legal obligations that prevent them from releasing
| the source code.
| lolc wrote:
| Easy. Then they can't distribute their tractors anymore.
| pabs3 wrote:
| Or they get to switch from Linux to BSD/etc.
| tracker1 wrote:
| 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.
| hansjorg wrote:
| 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-...
| phpisthebest wrote:
| 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
| bee_rider wrote:
| 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?
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| 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.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| 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.
| azubinski wrote:
| But why didn't he sue Xiaomi? Why? Life is pain and unanswered
| questions...
| quietbritishjim wrote:
| 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
| pabs3 wrote:
| 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...
| quietbritishjim wrote:
| You're right, I had misunderstood. Thanks for those very
| interesting links.
| rurban wrote:
| A video? This is the better link
| https://www.theregister.com/2023/03/17/john_deere_sfc_gpl/
| heywhatupboys wrote:
| > 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?
| [deleted]
| TheLoafOfBread wrote:
| 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]
| ryukafalz wrote:
| 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.)
| mattl wrote:
| Meanwhile https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/mar/16/john-
| deere-gpl-vi... doesn't mention Linux.
| LoganDark wrote:
| "right to repair licenses"? GPL was never designed for right
| to repair, but rather right to extend and modify, i.e. Open
| Source.
| asddubs wrote:
| right to fix bugs
| pabs3 wrote:
| I like to say the GPL gives me the right to repair
| software.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Actually, GPL was originally motivated by Stallman wanting
| to repair a printer at MIT that had a software bug.
| fsckboy wrote:
| > _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.
| LoganDark wrote:
| 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. :(
| justinclift wrote:
| That article has no mention of Louis Rossman in it.
| rurban wrote:
| 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.
| pabs3 wrote:
| 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
| larossmann wrote:
| 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.
| justinclift wrote:
| 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?
| trogdor wrote:
| >since the charlie brown affair sullied my reputation
| among some of the legislators
|
| I don't know what you are referring to. Mind explaining?
| larossmann wrote:
| 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
| justinclift wrote:
| 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".
| dehrmann wrote:
| I was wondering how he'd have standing unless some of the
| code was his.
| OJFord wrote:
| 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)
| [deleted]
| Fatnino wrote:
| He's going to bring the money for an attorney, not sue in
| his own name.
| isodev wrote:
| Thank you!
| Waterluvian wrote:
| He has standing to bring a suit?
| pabs3 wrote:
| He'll probably just fund those who do, he alludes to that in
| the video, says he has money in an account.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| 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.
| calvinmorrison wrote:
| You'd think some embedded proprietary RTOS would be ideal
| mardifoufs wrote:
| I don't think the linux part runs the machinery itself.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| 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?
| calvinmorrison wrote:
| Not even proprietary, plenty of RTOS options that are MIT
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| 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.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| 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?
| cduzz wrote:
| 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.
| klysm wrote:
| 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
| daemin wrote:
| 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.
| klysm wrote:
| 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.
| 5e92cb50239222b wrote:
| 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.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| 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.
| bradfa wrote:
| 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.
| larossmann wrote:
| >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.
| nebula8804 wrote:
| 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.
| dmonitor wrote:
| Incredibly off topic.
| larossmann wrote:
| >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.
| nebula8804 wrote:
| >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?
| freedomben wrote:
| 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.
| nebula8804 wrote:
| 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.
| larossmann wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| nebula8804 wrote:
| 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?
| daeros wrote:
| [dead]
| naikrovek wrote:
| > "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?
| user3939382 wrote:
| 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.
| sclarisse wrote:
| * reined, like a horse
| sophacles wrote:
| Do you think horses really want to be associated with a
| company that helped take away thier jobs?
| bch wrote:
| Neigh impossible to find, I'm sure.
| cmcconomy wrote:
| I think this probably keeps the average horse up at night
| funstuff007 wrote:
| 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.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-03-21 23:02 UTC)