Saturday 13 August 2016 by Bradley M. Kuhn
The time has come that I must speak out against the inappropriate rhetoric used by those who (ostensibly) advocate for FLOSS usage in automotive applications.
There was a catalyst that convinced me to finally speak up. I heard a
talk today from a company representative of a software supplier for the
automotive industry. He said during his talk:
putting GPLv3 software in
cars will kill people and
opening up the source code to cars will
cause more harm than good. These statements are completely disingenuous.
Most importantly, it ignores the fact that proprietary software in cars is at
least equally, if not more, dangerous. At least one person has already been
killed in a crash
a proprietary software auto-control
system. Volkswagen decided to
take a different route; they decided to kill us all slowly (rather than
quickly) by using proprietary software to lie about their emissions and
illegally polluting our air.
Meanwhile, there has been not a single example yet about use of GPLv3 software that has harmed anyone. If you have such an example, email it to me and I promise to add it right here to this blog post.
So, to the auto industry folks and vendors who market to/for them: until you can prove that proprietary software assures safety in a way that FLOSS cannot, I will continue to tell you this: in the long and sad tradition of the Therac 25, your proprietary software has killed people, both quickly and slowly, and your attacks on GPLv3 and software freedom are not only unwarranted, they are clearly part of a political strategy to divert attention from your own industry's bad behavior and graft unfair blame onto FLOSS.
As a side note, during the talk's Q&A session, I asked this company's
representatives how they assure compliance with the GPLv2 —
particularly their compliance with provision of
scripts used to control
compilation and installation of the executable, which are so often
missing for many products, including vehicles. The official answer
Oh, I don't know. Not only does this company publicly claim
security through obscurity is a viable solution, and accuse copyleft advocates
of endangering the public safety, they also seem to have not fully learned
the lessons of making FLOSS license compliance a clear part of their
This is, unfortunately, my general impression of the status of the automotive industry.
Comment on this post in this identi.ca conversation.
This website and all documents on it are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License .
from standard import disclaimer
SELECT full_text FROM standard WHERE type = 'disclaimer';
Both previously and presently, I have been employed by and/or done work for various organizations that also have views on Free, Libre, and Open Source Software. As should be blatantly obvious, this is my website, not theirs, so please do not assume views and opinions here belong to any such organization. Since I do co-own ebb.org with my wife, it may not be so obvious that these aren't her views and opinions, either.
ebb ® is a registered service mark of Bradley M. Kuhn.Bradley M. Kuhn <firstname.lastname@example.org>