I read one line in the article which gave me great pause...it was some nonsense from the automakers indicating that allowing somebody to even see their code could open the door to hackers taking over somebody else’s vehicle.
This is the part that worries me the most. Its no longer a copyright issue...it’s allegedly a safety issue. And just like all the things we do ‘for the children’, my prediction is that automakers will use this argument to make all of their code encrypted, even fault codes.
Let me ask you this. Now that ‘safety’ has been interjected, when all the dust settles, do you think the government would even allow me to make an ‘open source’ car? One where all the code could be seen, and yes hot rodders could make faster and climate denialists could make run dirtier, and innovators could make better. Would I even be able to build such cars? I doubt it - after all, that would be too dangerous.
Thus my original comment - Camel’s nose under the tent.
“And just like all the things we do ‘for the children’, my prediction is that automakers will use this argument to make all of their code encrypted, even fault codes.”
I don’t even see the sense in this argument. The “code” they are talking about is source code, not fault codes. Fault codes are just output, there isn’t any argument to be made that reading output can help someone compromise a vehicle’s systems. Even if they did encrypt fault codes, every certified mechanic and dealer would have access to decrypt them, so they would not be secure to anyone who really wanted to see them anyway.
“Let me ask you this. Now that ‘safety’ has been interjected, when all the dust settles, do you think the government would even allow me to make an ‘open source’ car?”
Of course, why wouldn’t you be able to?
Now, if you wanted to sell that car you built, you would have to meet whatever safety regulations are in place for vehicles to be sold on the market, just like everyone else. However, open source software is not necessarily inherently less secure than other software. In fact, because of the nature of open source, it is often more secure, because there are a lot more eyes looking at the source code and testing the software to spot vulnerabilities. Open source essentially crowdsources the testing and debugging in ways that proprietary software can’t usually match.
Just look at Linux versus Windows, or Firefox versus Internet Explorer. Which are more secure? The proprietary software with source codes nobody can legally peek at, or the open source software that anyone can delve into?