General Motors Says It Owns Your Car's Software

Dan_D said:
The truth is that consumers never "own" software. You own a license to use it. So long as you are within the terms of the EULA your golden. Violate those terms in some way that gets the attention of the devleoper/distributor and you'll find out real quickly how few rights you actually have when it comes to software. This is especially true should you make a profit on "misuse" of the software.
Click to expand...

HeHe just one problem WHEN you buy a used car you don't actually sign an EULA license for this that one of the other thing maker want to change to.
 
GM? A software company? This is HILARIOUS!!!

They should stick to building cars and not computers and software. They SUCK at building computers and software.
 
amddragonpc said:
They should stick to building cars and not computers and software. They SUCK at building computers and software.
Click to expand...

As someone who has owned several cars (MOST of my cars having been GM, in fact), let me just say that they also SUCK at building cars. Great engines, terrible everything else.

My G8 GT would've been fun if the 6L80E transmission and all the controlling software weren't so terrible. They should switch to ZF transmissions at least.
 
Betaboy1983 said:
Well just to be a smart ass, format and install Linux! hehe. Sounds like you'll void your warranty no matter what you do anyway. Open source coming to cars? We'll see.

My advice to anyone who buys a brand spankin' new GM.. When you drain the oil for the first time, send it back to them.. They still own that shit too.
Click to expand...

jojo69 said:
megasquirt FTW
Click to expand...

tikiman2012 said:
Time for open source software. I see this no different than unlocking a cell phone.
They should watch how they play this one. They might be opening themselves up to anti-trust cases in the E.U. That would be hilarious.

As an aside; talk about kicking yourself in the nuts.
Click to expand...

Listen to jojo69, he's already got your answer :)

dandragonrage said:
Uhh... no. This would be the equivalent of a PC that came with Windows being locked down from the user modifying Windows or putting a different OS on because they could end up with a computer virus or something.

It's completely asinine.

And they claim it's because of liability, but the issue is liability itself in America. Bad shit happens in life and just because people don't want to accept responsibility for their own actions does NOT mean that they should successfully be able to sue other people.
Click to expand...

Personal responsibility? This is AMERICA!! We don't need none of that!

I wonder if we have more lawyers than doctors in this country...
 
cageymaru said:
We gave up our rights to software that we purchased years ago. Everything today is a licensing agreement. GM is completely right with their outlook on this. It's what the general public wanted, otherwise they would have created a fuss long ago about software agreements.
Click to expand...

everything from the beginning of was licensing agreement..

this is just a hyberbole article -

of course you don't "own" the software that operates your vehicle.

you can't turn around and use that software and sell it to another company as your own. That is a ludicrous thought of software ownership

it amazes me, that for such a [H]ard place we still doesn't understand how software is bought and sold and what it means when you buy a piece of software.


Do you really think it would be ok that if you bought Doom 3 that you owned all of the textures, all of the code, all of the sound files and that you can then turn around and use those textures, sound files etc.. in your own game and re-sell it?- this is exactly why software - from the dawn of software time - has been a licensing model..
 
H-street said:
of course you don't "own" the software that operates your vehicle.

you can't turn around and use that software and sell it to another company as your own. That is a ludicrous thought of software ownership

it amazes me, that for such a [H]ard place we still doesn't understand how software is bought and sold and what it means when you buy a piece of software.
Click to expand...

The courts have proven time and time again that software is only licensed if you have first signed a contract or agreed to an EULA. Automakers could potentially do that with new car contracts, but they have no way to require this for used car sales.

And your example is stupid because you can legally modify your computer as much as you want but you still can't legally sell pirated copies of Windows.

Piracy and modification are not the same thing and your example assumes they are. Your argument is completely invalid. And very dumb.
 
westrock2000 said:
I really do not see where the issue is with this. They are saying that you do not have the right to modify the software.
Click to expand...

You can mod your car any way you see fit. You can completely gut the computer system from your car and run a custom system if you want, as long as the car is street legal and passes smog, you can do whatever the hell you want to with your car.

I also find it odd that Chevy, the people that will sell you a complete Camaro body so you can do just what I described above, are now pulling this crap. :(
 
Nothing like listening to tech people argue about software on a hardware platform they know very little about, like it is somehow even remotely similar to their PC's. :rolleyes:

The communication networks and inter-modular communication is not well documented in the public space. even within the manufacturer provided data, the documentation of how data is shared and distributed is limited, and the tools needed to capture and analyze it are not cheap nor easy to use.

Not every software change is intended to increase engine performance. modifying the vehicles infotainment system to bypass the software locks that prevent DVD movie playback while in gear, for example. this results with that system being spoofed into thinking the vehicle is in park when it is not. when this module keeps telling everything else its in park, and other modules say your are moving down the road, it creates data conflict on the data bus. the door locks and airbags are now receiving conflicting states of operation. but hey, now one fucks with the airbags, right?
 
Nimisys said:
Nothing like listening to tech people argue about software on a hardware platform they know very little about, like it is somehow even remotely similar to their PC's. :rolleyes:

The communication networks and inter-modular communication is not well documented in the public space. even within the manufacturer provided data, the documentation of how data is shared and distributed is limited, and the tools needed to capture and analyze it are not cheap nor easy to use.

Not every software change is intended to increase engine performance. modifying the vehicles infotainment system to bypass the software locks that prevent DVD movie playback while in gear, for example. this results with that system being spoofed into thinking the vehicle is in park when it is not. when this module keeps telling everything else its in park, and other modules say your are moving down the road, it creates data conflict on the data bus. the door locks and airbags are now receiving conflicting states of operation. but hey, now one fucks with the airbags, right?
Click to expand...

None of this matters. The detailed engineering plans for cars are also not available, so it should be illegal to use aftermarket parts and it should be illegal for anyone but the dealer to fix them, right?

Can ANY of you come up with an argument that couldn't easily be debunked by a 5 year old? This is way too easy.
 
dandragonrage said:
The courts have proven time and time again that software is only licensed if you have first signed a contract or agreed to an EULA. Automakers could potentially do that with new car contracts, but they have no way to require this for used car sales.

And your example is stupid because you can legally modify your computer as much as you want but you still can't legally sell pirated copies of Windows.

Piracy and modification are not the same thing and your example assumes they are. Your argument is completely invalid. And very dumb.
Click to expand...

You don't need a EULA for copyright.
 
dandragonrage said:
The courts have proven time and time again that software is only licensed if you have first signed a contract or agreed to an EULA. Automakers could potentially do that with new car contracts, but they have no way to require this for used car sales.

And your example is stupid because you can legally modify your computer as much as you want but you still can't legally sell pirated copies of Windows.

Piracy and modification are not the same thing and your example assumes they are. Your argument is completely invalid. And very dumb.
Click to expand...

so please enlighten me on what you think ownership should mean when it comes to software? - sounds like you want ownership with limitations -- wow sounds like a licensing model to me..
 
Okay so basically don't buy a Chevy? I mean I get the point that you don't own the software and they wrote it but at that point you might as well you lease the thing for 3 years and save a few grand if no one is allowed to touch it.
 
jpm100 said:
You don't need a EULA for copyright.
Click to expand...

Piracy violates copyright; modification does not. I am, of course, against piracy. But there is no piracy involved here.

You can also distribute modifications for copyrighted software as long as you don't distribute the software itself and as long as those modifications are used only by people who have a right to the software itself, such as by ownership of the vehicle. Regardless of whether you consider the car's control software to be licensed or owned, if you have a valid license or ownership, copyright does not stop you from modifying stuff.
 
Another reason to never buy an american car under any circumstance (as if I needed any more reasons :p )
 
shspvr said:
HeHe just one problem WHEN you buy a used car you don't actually sign an EULA license for this that one of the other thing maker want to change to.
Click to expand...

Honestly, the whole thing is stupid. Its one thing when we are talking about a PC when the hardware is a separate purchase from the software. You also have options as far as the software is concerned. You may not like them, but you have them. There is nothing that says I have to run Windows on my machine. With cars it isn't the same since the hardware and software are permanently intertwined. You can certainly make the case for owning the software that controls the engine as it does not function without it. Like changing your exhaust, heads or whatever, you can do as you wish although GM doesn't have to provide warranty service for your changes.

That should be a given and we should all just move on with our lives.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041616128 said:
Another reason to never buy an american car under any circumstance (as if I needed any more reasons :p )
Click to expand...
What plant are you from IT HAS NOTHING DO WITH American car as it also Foreign Manufacturers that want this too.
 
dandragonrage said:
As someone who has owned several cars (MOST of my cars having been GM, in fact), let me just say that they also SUCK at building cars. Great engines, terrible everything else.
Click to expand...

I have an older relative that had driven Cadillacs for decades.
He had so many expensive repairs on the last 3 he owned, that he finally gave up on them and bought a Toyota. I was actually when I heard about it, as he had remained pro Cadillac even after years of expensive problems.
 
dandragonrage said:
None of this matters. The detailed engineering plans for cars are also not available, so it should be illegal to use aftermarket parts and it should be illegal for anyone but the dealer to fix them, right?
.
Click to expand...

IF the attitude from consumers was a clear, i messed with it and i'll take full responsibility for the consequences, then go have fun.

But its not. the attitude is i fucked with it, i didn't like the outcome, now you fix it.

as the software starts controlling hardware in a fashion that replaces more and more mechanical controls, the liabilty caused by incorrectly integrated software becomes greater.

history thus far has not shown wide-spread integration testing in the aftermarket industry to be at a standard equivalent to what the manufacturers are being held too. large companies have the capital to perform the proper integration testing, and in some cases choose to do so, but they are far outnumbered by those who do not have the capital, or care to do such testing.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041616128 said:
Another reason to never buy an american car under any circumstance (as if I needed any more reasons :p )
Click to expand...

What is an American car?

Is a Toyota built in America with mainly American components an import?
Is a Ford built in Mexico and American car?
How about a Chrysler, built in Canada by a French owned company?
 
nutzo said:
I have an older relative that had driven Cadillacs for decades.
He had so many expensive repairs on the last 3 he owned, that he finally gave up on them and bought a Toyota. I was actually when I heard about it, as he had remained pro Cadillac even after years of expensive problems.
Click to expand...

I was anti-Toyota pro-GM for many years because to this day I love GM engines. I think they make the best mass-produced engines in the world (so this excludes supercar engines and such).

I had an 89 Camaro w/ a 305 TBI and T5 World Class transmission. I had a 96 Grand Am with the 3100 V6 (which I did have to fix the leaky lower intake manifold gasket; that took me several evenings) and the terrible 4T60e. I had a 99 Camaro Z28 which I fortunately did get in T56 form. I had a 2009 G8 GT which I would've bought in a manual had they offered the manual in GT trim - ended up with the terrible 6L80e.

I've driven several Toyotas in the past 10 or so years that ended up being far better than I thought. My friend has an 04 or 05 Corolla 1.8L that was actually reasonably powerful for the car it was in - actually a LOT more powerful than the 04 or 05 Honda Accord 2.4L my mom had for her last car. I drove that Accord for a month or so when I crashed my G8. Worst driving experience of my life. I was literally scared every time I had to pull onto a busy road with a high speed limit 50MPH+.

Another friend has an 09 or 10 Corolla which accelerates decently and actually handles pretty good. One of the company cars I've driven at my work several times is a mid-2000s Toyota Avalon which has some of the worst steering feel I have ever experienced, though the engine is good.

Overall I still don't love Toyota, but I don't outright hate them anymore. And each time I see GM in the news, I feel more and more dumb for ever liking their products. Recall after recall... Legal BS... Bailouts, which still occur because our government purchases some GM cars that don't sell well (because they suck and/or are overpriced)...

I'm as anti-GM now as I used to be anti-Toyota, and now I'm fairly neutral on Toyota, but that Avalon's steering feel is seriously unacceptably terrible.

But if other companies are going to join GM in asking the government to remove my right to fix and modify my own car in any way I see fit, I may add more companies to my boycott list. (There... I made this post into an on-topic one.)

P.S. I drive mostly European vehicles now. And those companies do have some really bad practices, too. I like Audi a lot but I would never buy a new one because they will refuse warranty work if you don't have all your service records and tend to hassle you if you didn't get the work done at a place they approve (even though legally they aren't allowed to deny warranty unless I actually mess something up). For GM, I actually bought the G8 brand new, though. What a dumb purchase that was.
 
Very interesting.. honestly I can't see GM losing the argument.
I am not saying I agree totally with our laws, but their argument makes sense given the framework.
I can see however, a future of tuning where you remove all of GM's software, and get a completely new ECU.. I don't know how expensive that would it, I guess it depends on the ECU manufacturers and ECU software makers.

We will certainly lose 'flavor' as a country if we lose the car tuning (I guess is car hacking? in case of electric vehicles) culture.
I am sure that market is seen as too small to matter anyway.
Time to bring 80s and 90s cars to the 'classic' tuning scene I guess (I think its kind of happening already)
 
dandragonrage said:
I was anti-Toyota pro-GM for many years because to this day I love GM engines. I think they make the best mass-produced engines in the world (so this excludes supercar engines and such)....
Click to expand...

Screw Toyota, had one, I don't think I will again.
After the unintended acceleration crap, and letting a man go to jail (that just lost his family if not mistaken), fully knowing they had problems with that.. screw 'em.
 
Dan_D said:
Honestly, the whole thing is stupid. Its one thing when we are talking about a PC when the hardware is a separate purchase from the software. You also have options as far as the software is concerned. You may not like them, but you have them. There is nothing that says I have to run Windows on my machine. With cars it isn't the same since the hardware and software are permanently intertwined. You can certainly make the case for owning the software that controls the engine as it does not function without it. Like changing your exhaust, heads or whatever, you can do as you wish although GM doesn't have to provide warranty service for your changes.

That should be a given and we should all just move on with our lives.
Click to expand...

That depend on how you look at it
With PC there are two kind OEM/System Builder or Home Build
OEM/System Builder copy stay with that system as it not separate
Home Build are separate your keep to put on new system as long as it a Full or Upgrade Retail ver.

They don't warranty exhaust system or any rubber part after so min days if I recall right I think it 180 days.
GM/Ford and other still provide warranty service for your changes as long as it an approved product hell they even sell bolt on high performance parts under factory warranty.

Yup that true permanently intertwined make it harder to get around them
 
Uvaman said:
So sorry.. not that I hold US companies in any high regard, but Toyota, man, they are something else lately.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/15/hmg-toyotalawsuit-idUSnPn1z34Hn+82+PRN20150515
Click to expand...

While I'd heard of the unintended acceleration stuff, I hadn't specifically heard about this. This is actually really despicable. I'm not necessarily sure that it lowers Toyota to GM's level to me, but I have just lost some respect for Toyota. Thanks for the info.

Unfortunately, though, I imagine that nearly all the car companies are at least almost as scummy. But I'll still consider any information that is made available when I purchase cars. Even used ones.
 
GM has a very long history of intentionally underpowering their lower profit cars that use the same motor as their halo cars.

For example, the TransAm Ram Air has 320 horses while the C5 based on the exact same engine at 350

It was all in the ECM chip. GM didn't want to cannibalize sales of their halo cars. But there were plenty of after market companies willing to reprogram the chip for you but adjusting max fuel pressure/air ratios and ignition timings.
 
Since the dawn of moonshine running we have tinkered and upgraded cars.
GM has been in the middle of this.
Prebuilt upgraded cars are sometimes collectors items, but they are not ever what they could be.
We grease-monkeys take a 19k used Mustang and dump another 5K into it and suddenly we are dusting Corvettes. That pride comes from your own hard work. If you destroy that you will loose your market share.
We affect car buying decisions. If Honda lets me tinker and Chevy doesn't. I'm buying a Honda.
 
Mac75 said:
Since the dawn of moonshine running we have tinkered and upgraded cars.
GM has been in the middle of this.
Prebuilt upgraded cars are sometimes collectors items, but they are not ever what they could be.
We grease-monkeys take a 19k used Mustang and dump another 5K into it and suddenly we are dusting Corvettes. That pride comes from your own hard work. If you destroy that you will loose your market share.
We affect car buying decisions. If Honda lets me tinker and Chevy doesn't. I'm buying a Honda.
Click to expand...

You probably don't realize how small of a minority of car buyers you are in though.

Most people would never dream of modifying their cars, at least not outside of air filters and exhaust systems.
 
can't change exhaust computer goes nuts.
can't change air intake computer goes nuts knows that it doesn't have some chip it the seal that they add.

Picture GM trying to sell you a paper air filter for 150 bucks because this is the one they "approve" for "their car." You insert a different one and boom computer error as it detects the difference in the element. I can see the idiocy that they could do if given the opportunity.

If they get away with this it will balloon and eventually seriously impact the little guy specifically when this shuts down every independent mechanic in the nation.

You can only use Certified Dealers.

Repair costs quadruple.

Are you sure you realize the impact?
 
Thank god for Year One baby.

I'm going to get myself a brand new 69' Camaro without having to use any of GM's "soft ware". Rather than buy a 2015 version. Well played Chevy. :rolleyes:
 
Bad enough, a friend of mine just did a brake job on his new Cadillac, all GM proprietary parts, cost him $2600 .... for a Brake job.

More "mysteries" of the computer black boxes and it'll cost you $500 just for them to tell you you need to have something fixed.

GM is the new Found On Road Dead .... because no one will be able to afford to fix them. :eek:
 
xX_Jack_Carver_Xx said:
Bad enough, a friend of mine just did a brake job on his new Cadillac, all GM proprietary parts, cost him $2600 .... for a Brake job.

More "mysteries" of the computer black boxes and it'll cost you $500 just for them to tell you you need to have something fixed.

GM is the new Found On Road Dead .... because no one will be able to afford to fix them. :eek:
Click to expand...

2600 is normal for a luxury car if you buy all ur parts from the dealer.

Even $500 for a corolla is normal if parts are sourced from the dealer.

Ie rotors are usually made by brembo for Toyota.
Toyota stamped/boxed rotor is $80 from Toyota. Same rotor outside is $35.

Entire strut assemblies for a Toyota are made by kyb.
For only the strut, toyota charges $100, Kyb charges $120 for everything (strut assembly)
 
dandragonrage said:
Piracy violates copyright; modification does not. I am, of course, against piracy. But there is no piracy involved here.

The GM lawyer comment has zero context and was an attempt to pull GM into the issue with the John Deere story for pure clickbate reasons. Without the Deere story for context which the GM lawywer probably wasn't given, the lawyer probably thought he was responding to a piracy question. We don't see the lead up to the response, just the isolated response.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
This would be like Frito Lay owning the chip when some crazy cat lady finds one in her bag that looks like Elvis or Jesus.
 
Question: If GM owns the car as they say, would they then be legally liable for any accident involving said vehicle?
 
GM hires woman CEO.
GM starts sucking D.

Coincidence? Should have known she liked the D beforehand. Speaking of D's, her other big change was tackling the Dress-code, because that's clearly a prominent issue for the company that needs to be addressed at the highest levels. Not tackling high level questions like telling people they are merely renting-life-life the cars they buy.

And for that they gave her another $3 million in stock because of such an epic "culture change". LOL!
 
Ducman69 said:
GM hires woman CEO.
GM starts sucking D.

Coincidence? Should have known she liked the D beforehand. Speaking of D's, her other big change was tackling the Dress-code, because that's clearly a prominent issue for the company that needs to be addressed at the highest levels. Not tackling high level questions like telling people they are merely renting-life-life the cars they buy.

And for that they gave her another $3 million in stock because of such an epic "culture change". LOL!
Click to expand...

when did she take over cause my car sucks d too and it is a buick...
 
Lunas said:
when did she take over cause my car sucks d too and it is a buick...
Click to expand...
About a year and a half. She raised her salary to $16.2 million + bonus + stock options, and so far the "changes" she has made have been so laughable as to be scary. No GM CEO before her ever took close as much, and even those guys were overpaid.

Her other wonderful decisions involved the GM ignition switchgate, in which she claimed total ignorance... even though the facts show otherwise, and someone getting paid as much as her you would think would know about something life threatening affecting so many vehicles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top