If you own a GM car — bought, paid, for, have a title signed off by GM or the lender saying the car is yours … well, GM is fine with all that … all except that software that makes the various computerized bits of it work properly. That, GM maintains, it owns, has copyright to, and is merely licensing to car owners. Nobody, including the putative owner of the car, can examine it, let alone modify it … but without it the car won't run.
So, who actually owns your car?
Originally shared by +Les Jenkins:
It's GM's car. They're just letting you use it.
GM: That Car You Bought? We’re Really The Ones Who Own It.
Congratulations! You just bought a new Chevy, GMC, or Cadillac. You really like driving it. And it’s purchased, not leased, and all paid off with no liens, so it’s all yours… isn’t it? Well, no, …
I'm cool with it. The idea of someone hacking my on board software fills me with horror! But then, I'm a Mac user so I'm conditioned that way!
+Darryl Collins I certainly don't want anyone hacking my on-board software — but I'd like to reserve the right to have a different provider have access to do so should I choose.
I'm generally a supporter of open source but where would liability lie in the event of a problem?
+Darryl Collins Interesting question. Though in principle it's the same as with current liability issues, only more complex as it's software, not merely non-GM parts and/or non-GM service personnel involved.
Presumably the reason for the license mentioned in the article is so that they can say, to anyone who has tampered with the software, that it invalidated the warranty and thus they could not be responsible for any consequential damage. I can't see any other way for them to handle it short of getting a waiver from every owner that hacks the software. And what happens after resale, particularly if the new owner doesn't know it's been hacked?
"Licensing" of "copyrighted" materials has nothing to do with liability. It would be simple enough to simply treat it as stickers over the screw holes of a "non-serviceable" part — if the stickers are broken, it's the consumer's look-out. Similarly, if the code has been changed from stock plus whatever authorized patches have been put in, GM is off the hook. That's going to be their position whether they "allowed" it nor not.
I think it has. (IANAL). The license will include something along the lines of "unauthorised changes to this software will invalidate the warranty" I'd bet.
+Darryl Collins Sure. But the warranty is irrelevant to the license / copyright issue.
Other than to explain why they did it?
+Darryl Collins If their concern is over warranty, that can be handled (as it is in so many other cases) without asserting ownership over the stuff being warranted. Every other part on a GM car that is warranted by them includes an improper use and abuse clause, without asserting that GM has a copyright ownership over those pieces and nobody can look at how they are constructed or connected, let alone replace them with a non-GM part.
I know it likely can be handled in another way, I'm just being devil's advocate assuming they this was just another way to get the same result.
+Darryl Collins When folk start using copyright like this, my assumption is that they are trying to dodge competition or hide what they are doing.