[herbstein]

> On June 12, 2014, Tesla announced that it will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use its technology.

with the following definition:

> A party is "acting in good faith" for so long as such party and its related or affiliated companies have not:

> * asserted, helped others assert or had a financial stake in any assertion of (i) any patent or other intellectual property right against Tesla or (ii) any patent right against a third party for its use of technologies relating to electric vehicles or related equipment;

> * challenged, helped others challenge, or had a financial stake in any challenge to any Tesla patent; or

> * marketed or sold any knock-off product (e.g., a product created by imitating or copying the design or appearance of a Tesla product or which suggests an association with or endorsement by Tesla) or provided any material assistance to another party doing so.

In other words, Tesla is giving away all of their patents only to entities that grant Tesla access to all of _their_ patents. That is hardly open-source in the software development sense of the word.

https://www.tesla.com/legal/additional-resources#patent-pled...

[cal85]

Interesting, thanks. But I’d disagree that this makes it “hardly open source”. It makes it more ‘GPL’ than ‘MIT’, but both of those qualify as open source. It seems a pretty reasonable condition in this case, imo. In any case it would be a stretch to call it a “lie” that they open sourced their patents, which is the claim I challenged here.