[sbx320]

I think the question is rather if Tesla is allowed to provide source for current version you have (therefore complying with the GPL), but also refuse to ship any further updates to you as well.

As you'd no longer receive the new binaries, you'd also no longer be entitled to the new sources per the GPL. This would leave Tesla with a large deterrent against people asking for sources.

[heisenzombie]

My guess is that imposing a punishment for exercising your right to the source code wouldn't hold up:

"You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License."

Also, once any person has the source code they explicitly have the right to distribute it. So even if the punishment was imposed, it would only apply to the first person (who could then e.g. upload it to GitHub for everyone else). Maybe someone with a written-off Tesla would do that?

[xeromal]

It's not really punishment. You're not guaranteed updates when you buy the car.

[crooked-v]

"You'll get X in future updates" is usually a prominent part of Tesla's marketing.

[NullPrefix]

Long term AB testing, where A gets updates and B does not. Pretty standard in the industry.

[esotericn]

They are still shipping the software to others, but the copyright on that software is owned by the contributors and developers of said software.

Consider the (artificial) case in which I start selling copies of Windows without a license. MS don't have to buy one of those copies in order to have a claim against me.

[sbx320]

Yes, Tesla would continue to be bound by the GPL for the new versions as well. However the GPL does not require you to offer the source to the public or any third parties at all that did not aquire the software legitimately. If I'd sell a custom Linux kernel to Microsoft, I'd not be required to give you the source for it, if you ask for it. Your Windows example doesn't really apply here, as Windows isn't GPL licensed.

The big question is whether punishing users by no longer providing any updates after asking for sources is a GPL violation in itself.

From the GPL FAQ [1]:

> If I distribute GPLed software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge?

> No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public.

[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#DoesTheGPLRequi...

[gpm]

This is, surprisingly since it's from the faq, incorrect. Here's the relevant text from the GPLv2

> 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,

> c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

C doesn't apply here (it's not non commercial, they didn't receive it like that, ...). A doesn't apply here unless they start just giving every customer the source. So we're in case B which requires them to give it to any third party.

(IANAL)