MG Software Lawsuit

[jamakr4]

Seems that MG is currently getting sued in Germany over their software due to copyright and open-source license violations.

The case was brought forward by a buyer who claims that the vehicle’s software contains open-source components, but the required obligations (like license texts, copyright notices, source code access, and modification rights) were not respected. His lawyer, argues this makes the car legally defective.

A major risk mentioned in the article below, is that the rights holders of the open-source software could theoretically block or disable the software, which would make the car unusable.

Anyone has heard something about his?

Klage wegen MG4: Streit um Open-Source-Lizenzen im Elektroauto

Ein Käufer des chinesischen Elektroautos MG4 geht juristisch gegen den Verkäufer und den Importeur, die SAIC Motor Deutschland GmbH, vor. Grund ist die …

www.mobiflip.de

mg – JUN Legal GmbH

jun.legal

 

[Kithmo]

Doesn't "open source" mean anyone can use it and the author has given away the rights ?
If so, why would the author block it ?

 

[salty]

Nope, never heard about this. And to be honest, don't understand it.

 

[jamakr4]

Doesn't "open source" mean anyone can use it and the author has given away the rights ?
If so, why would the author block it ?

You are only allowed to use the software as you wish if you fulfill the conditions of the license. If you don’t, you are legally not allowed to use or change it. In this case MG seems to have violated the terms and conditions of that license.

 

[Everest]

Doesn't "open source" mean anyone can use it and the author has given away the rights ?

No, it's more complicated than that. Permitted usage will depend on the specific licence under which the source code is provided.

Some licences agreements, such as GPL, require the user to make all of their derived works open source. Other agreements are more lenient, on the user that is, such as LGPL, BSD or MIT licence, where they do not require the user to open-source their derived works. However, in many cases, the supplier will also need to make available the source code that was used, modifications made to it and give the end user the ability to make changes to the open-source part of the supplied software.

Reading the above link, suggests the plaintiff has not been given the necessary information to look at or modify parts of the software that SAIC have created from open-source software. It will be interesting to follow.

 

[Tuareg]

I'm waiting for my car to be immobilised lol. I'm sure SAIC must be trembling in their boots

 

[Roger001]

Seems that MG is currently getting sued in Germany over their software due to copyright and open-source license violations.

The case was brought forward by a buyer who claims that the vehicle’s software contains open-source components, but the required obligations (like license texts, copyright notices, source code access, and modification rights) were not respected. His lawyer, argues this makes the car legally defective.

A major risk mentioned in the article below, is that the rights holders of the open-source software could theoretically block or disable the software, which would make the car unusable.

Anyone has heard something about his?

Klage wegen MG4: Streit um Open-Source-Lizenzen im Elektroauto

Ein Käufer des chinesischen Elektroautos MG4 geht juristisch gegen den Verkäufer und den Importeur, die SAIC Motor Deutschland GmbH, vor. Grund ist die …

www.mobiflip.de

mg – JUN Legal GmbH

jun.legal

LOL,

It is hard to comment on the law in Germany as it is very different to the system followed in the UK, and so countries that have based their legal systems on the UK. I'm not sure that "legally defective" is a concept in the UK system. Such a concept would allow people to sue over just about every IT device they own, as the misuse of open-source software is common among equipment manufacturers.

What is pure rubbish is the bit about open-source software rights holders could block or disable the software.

To block the use of the software, the rights holder would have to take SAIC to court over the copyright issue, until they win and deal with all the likely appeals, they have no power to force SAIC to do anything. As for being able to disable the software, the writer just does not understand what open source is - the rights holder has published their code, and SAIC has taken it and incorporated it into their systems. The rights holder has no access to the running code to disable it.

 

[salty]

That explains it a bit better to me. To be honest didn't really understand it.
But it still sounded like a load of cobblers.

 

[leonkernan]

Doesn't "open source" mean anyone can use it and the author has given away the rights ?

No, that's not what it means at all. Just because you let someone inside your house doesn't mean they can claim ownership of it.

SAIC uses plenty of open source code, some through Android itself and other bits they added on.
Good luck to the guy, but I doubt much will come of it.

 

[RobQuads]

Licences are a nightmare, especially with modern languages like node and go where you import a library that then imports 100s and it only take one of them to be bad and you can be in serious trouble.

A good example is GitHub - bouk/monkey: Monkey patching in Go. We were using this and had to make sure it was removed due to the licensing. Don’t act and you can be liable for a lot of money.

 

[hojnikb]

A similar "argument" could be made for pretty much any car running AAOS. I don't think this lawsuit has any teeth.

 

[Roger001]

Licences are a nightmare, especially with modern languages like node and go where you import a library that then imports 100s and it only take one of them to be bad and you can be in serious trouble.

A good example is GitHub - bouk/monkey: Monkey patching in Go. We were using this and had to make sure it was removed due to the licensing. Don’t act and you can be liable for a lot of money.

A poison pill license, I've spent many years dealing with developers who include third-party code without considering the issues it causes. At least that one does not set any conditions on the code that it is combined with, unlike GPL.

 

[jamakr4]

LOL,

It is hard to comment on the law in Germany as it is very different to the system followed in the UK, and so countries that have based their legal systems on the UK. I'm not sure that "legally defective" is a concept in the UK system. Such a concept would allow people to sue over just about every IT device they own, as the misuse of open-source software is common among equipment manufacturers.

What is pure rubbish is the bit about open-source software rights holders could block or disable the software.

To block the use of the software, the rights holder would have to take SAIC to court over the copyright issue, until they win and deal with all the likely appeals, they have no power to force SAIC to do anything. As for being able to disable the software, the writer just does not understand what open source is - the rights holder has published their code, and SAIC has taken it and incorporated it into their systems. The rights holder has no access to the running code to disable it.

Germany is terribly overregulated in every imaginable way. Often, local rules from the city collide with laws from the state, which in turn conflict with federal laws. It’s a nightmare!

 

[leonkernan]

Germany is terribly overregulated in every imaginable way. Often, local rules from the city collide with laws from the state, which in turn conflict with federal laws. It’s a nightmare!

Sounds like Australia.

 

[NLMGSAN]

Germany is terribly overregulated in every imaginable way. Often, local rules from the city collide with laws from the state, which in turn conflict with federal laws. It’s a nightmare!

But a license violation is the same everywhere. It will be interesting if the judge considers it as one. That will at least have implications in the whole of EU. If so, SAIC will pay and case is closed I guess.

 

[Roger001]

But a license violation is the same everywhere. It will be interesting if the judge considers it as one. That will at least have implications in the whole of EU. If so, SAIC will pay and case is closed I guess.

The issue is going to come down to whether the German legal system allows someone to claim that a copyright infringement makes a product legally defective. As that could only happen if the copyright holder themselves were to win a court case with the company that was infringing their copyright.

 

[NLMGSAN]

True. My guess is the copyright holder knows this will likely not happen. But they do want to be compensated.
By setting the bar this high it means a very solid evaluation is asked to judge whether there is an infringement at all. It could very well end up with infringement yes, defective:no. That result is enough to force SAIC to compensate.

 

[Roger001]

True. My guess is the copyright holder knows this will likely not happen. But they do want to be compensated.
By setting the bar this high it means a very solid evaluation is asked to judge whether there is an infringement at all. It could very well end up with infringement yes, defective:no. That result is enough to force SAIC to compensate.

However, it is not the copyright holder making the case, but rather a buyer of a car that contains software that does not meet the licence terms set by the copyright holder.