@xue >Elon and Tesla is interesing on that one >they use linux but last time ive checked they dont open-source anything
The kernel, Linux isn't even "open source", it's proprietary software.

Telsa got caught violating the GPLv2 multiple times, but they had to do at least partially what was legally required something or get sued: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2018/may/18/tesla-incomplete-ccs/
The last time I checked the source wasn't complete.


@mangeurdenuage >the GPLv2 has a loophole
It doesn't.

I don't see a loophole in: " The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable."

It doesn't say "object code" or "binary", it says *executable*, as in a program that actually executes.

You haven't provided the source code and the scripts used to control installation if you can't compile and install a binary that works on the device.


Of course, getting a judge and lawyers to understand this is quite difficult and there has been a lack of enforcement, so lots of companies sadly keep getting away with violating the GPLv2.

Still, any effort in enforcing specifically that clause in the GPLv2 is usually better spent upgrading to the GPLv3-or-later or the GPLv2-or-later, to put an eventual end to that problem.


The GPLv3 really is just some clarifications that made it crystal clear what was meant and also less restrictions, as there's more library exceptions for the case where free software is running on a OS or runtime with a GPLv3-incompatible license.