The other interesting takeaway is that obviously open source is widely used in embedded systems such as cars. 108 distinct licenses means that they're using at least as many libraries/projects, likely many many more that fall under the big ones.
Why would it be impossible to comply with GPLv3, and allow people to change or replace one program with a new one?
US car manufacturers are legally forced to provide documentation so car owners can repair their car and replace parts. If a car owner want to change or replace the car's breaks, they are legally allowed to do so. Why should it matter that the software that then controls the break is made of 1 and 0 and not of steel and plastic?
Do we really need a Motor Vehicle Owners' Right to Repair software Act? Do we need one more law that says "we got that one previous act, lets copy paste that one and add the word "software" to it".
I suspect it's similar to the reasons why many wireless drivers require binary blobs (either firmware, or the entire driver) -- you can change the software to let you operate outside of the limits allowed by federal regulators, because those limits are enforced in software.
Same goes for the physical breaks on the car. If someone install custom breaks on their cars that is found to be unsafe, it is illegal. This doesn't however make installing custom breaks on your car illegal. On the opposite, the law explicitly allows you to do so, and enforces the car manufacturers to give you documentation so you can do it.
Why should federal regulators differential between someone installing custom physical breaks on your car, or someone installing custom software that controls the breaks. Whats the difference?
Surely the device could contain GPLv3 software which isn't statically linked, or which is simply running on the computer. A lot of these devices use Linux, and may include GPLv3 utilities.
GPLv3 contains the "Anti-TiVo" clause which requires that GPLv3 software be able to be swapped out with its equivalent from-source build by the end-user.
Most car manufacturers are very hesitant to give users access to swap out their car's software, often for warranty and safety reasons.
I can take a car to a repair shop of my choice, and replace the breaks. This is not illegal, nor does it invalidate some kind of "warranty". If the break is found to cause safety risk, it is not the car manufacturer that is going to get into trouble.
Why would there be a special warranty or safety concern replacing the software that control the break, but no warranty or safety concern replacing the physical breaks with custom ones?
I agree that there should be nothing illegal about modifying software, and that modifying software can't (or at least shouldn't) blanket-void a warranty.
My point was that since the burden is on the manufacturer to prove that they're denying a warranty claim due to a user's negligence or damage, manufacturers hate users modifying control software.
It's a lot easier to make a software change, damage a car, and reverse the change than it is to make a physical change, damage the car, and swap the part back before taking the part back to the dealer.
Plus, errors in software are much harder to spot. If I get a brake caliper bracket with a giant crack in it, I see the issue while I'm installing it and can send it back. If I download BillyJoe's Flash V1.65, I have to go to a lot more work to figure out if it's going to hurt me.
If the car crashes, I don't see how it would be easier to replace the offending physical part, or replacing the offending digital part.
However, its true that you might have a easier time to see a giant crack, but would you see material fatigue? would you see improper engineered breaks? Would you notice if instead of using steel in a critical point, they happened to use a more weaker metal like aluminum?
I guess the big difference is in user behavior. No one would go and buy BillyJoe's breaks from some alleyway, especially if it looked like they manufactured the stuff out of paste. However, some people might happily install breaks from an email attachment, sent by fishy Joes Nigeria email service. Especially if it said "Cheep UpGrade to the car braks!".
Im not sure if that should matter in the long run. It shouldn't require that government create a new law, like a Motor Vehicle Owners' Right to Repair software Act.