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 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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
> 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 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
> "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?
[+] [-] qwertox|3 years ago|reply
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
[+] [-] the_pwner224|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] Ccecil|3 years ago|reply
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
[+] [-] i80and|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] AdrianB1|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] user3939382|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sclarisse|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dkjaudyeqooe|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lakecresva|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] hansjorg|3 years ago|reply
https://www.axios.com/2022/08/04/supreme-court-john-roberts-...
[+] [-] cbolton|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JohnFen|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rurban|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] heywhatupboys|3 years ago|reply
what?
[+] [-] justinclift|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] isodev|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jeroenhd|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] larossmann|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] klysm|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bradfa|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] throwaway894345|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] CamperBob2|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] calvinmorrison|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 2OEH8eoCRo0|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] quietbritishjim|3 years ago|reply
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|3 years ago|reply
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...
[+] [-] charcircuit|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] boomboomsubban|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] Timshel|3 years ago|reply
His goal is to fund a lawyer to look into the issue. And looks to me he would just like screwing with John Deere.
[+] [-] spyremeown|3 years ago|reply
Isn't the whole point of the GPL that the user has rights to the software?
[+] [-] LelouBil|3 years ago|reply
Can you explain this in more detail ? I thought that was the case.
[+] [-] rileymat2|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tjpnz|3 years ago|reply
Whether Rossmann is the copyright owner or not is a minor point given he could throw his money and expertise behind whoever is.
[+] [-] FpUser|3 years ago|reply
I am pretty sure he can convince copyright owner go give him power of attorney for specific case.
[+] [-] detourdog|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dkjaudyeqooe|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] naikrovek|3 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] Waterluvian|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pabs3|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] funstuff007|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] daeros|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] azubinski|3 years ago|reply