That's a really fucking shitty thing to do, and is gonna cause some pretty big waves IMO if they follow through with it.

The issues with not being able to modify your own stuff is already really shitty, but its not something that the average Joe really can understand easily, and even less care about it.

But not being able to USE your car for some things? That just screams easy headlines and it's a reason I might not get a Tesla in the future.

The most interesting thing about self-driving vehicles is that there is a legitimate reason people should never be able to modify the firmware on their vehicles. The risks would be very high.

There is also the entire liability and planed obsolescent issues not being dealt with. Will Tesla support these cars forever? Will 10 year old models still get software updates?

> The most interesting thing about self-driving vehicles is that there is a legitimate reason people should never be able to modify the firmware on their vehicles

People can already modify their car hardware in dangerous ways, yet no one is welding the hood shut. You may weld spikes on your car to keep prying eyes away if you wish, but when you inevitably impale someone, Ford will not be liable.

Why should software be treated differently? All Tesla has to do to avoid liability is to say "The vehicle was running firmware with aftermarket firmware installed by the owner". They won't even need to run diagnostics, they can simply look at the logs they collect.

Sorry, there is a fundamental difference with modification when you get into software, server-based logic, and machine learning.

It's a bit like when people used to modding their own hardware tools encounter a GPU or a RAM card that won't fit into a PCI slot, so they "cut it to fit", and then are surprised it doesn't work.

When you modify a car physically with spikes or to make more engine noise, or to have looser suspension you are dealing with isolated newtonian environments.

When you tweak software that involves massive machine learned models, you can cause absolutely unpredictable horrific consequences. There are good reasons to restrict this.

> You may weld spikes on your car to keep prying eyes away if you wish, but when you inevitably impale someone, Ford will not be liable.

Because it will be obvious that it was modified, even to journalists, the public and a jury of your peers. Also the cops, who will arrest you for it.

But there is no such visibility for software.

Expert witnesses exist for a reason - they will be able to answer the question whether the firmware was factory-installed or not.

> But there is no such visibility for software

Software modification has a lot of visibility, especially since Teslas log everything - why not log when new firmware was loaded? They could also checksum post-facto, but even that is not necessary: Tesla could implement something similar to Androids "fastboot oem unlock" option

> Software modification has a lot of visibility, especially since Teslas log everything

What I mean by visibility is that you can't fudge it, that reality is plainly visible to all actors.

Income is not visible directly (although what one's house looks like for example is visible and is a good indication of income). If you meet a well-dressed guy in a Starbucks, you have no idea whether he's crippled with debt or whether he has so much money he doesn't know what to do with. And that's true regardless of the fact that income is regulated by the government, that banks keep records and all that.

Software is NOT visible in that sense: whether your microwave is running code that will make it explode when you type in 9999 or not, is not something that can be known by everyone but the first person who has access to the device, let alone the public who couldn't understand how to compare two hashes anyway.

As far as any third party is concerned, Tesla could just be faking logs and no one would know. Actually, you may not see it still, so imagine that say, GM, suddenly releases an autonomous car and it crashes. Do you trust them when they tell you that the logs say the driver was at fault?

I guess the concern is that both sides will get expert witnesses with equally long CVs to make equally compelling arguments and then it's on the jury to decide which PhD they want to believe. Not sure how that helps.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with that.

Cars are already extremely risky to modify, but it is still possible (and it's even a protected consumer right). I can go out and accidentally cut the breaks on my own car while changing the tire, if it causes harm, we already have a system in place to deal with it.

Why should software be any different?

I would argue that cars are not extremely risky to modify mechanically - the parts are usually large, almost everything you'd want to do on your car has youtube videos and forum threads with people doing the exact same procedure, and you have pretty immediate feedback if you really messed anything up/the car is inoperable.

I don't think that is the same for self-driving software if you were allowed to hack it. It is easy to test if your brakes work, I think it may be harder to test modified software with the huge number of interactions it must deal with.

It's not a your business unless you will be hit by such car.

Oh baloney. Have you any experience with current car tech? It's pretty freaking basic, all things considered. Anyone who codes enterprise applications for a living can deal with a car's ECU, including ABS, traction control, all of it. The autonomous stuff is "scary AI" but if it's not open sourced, I don't want it.

> The most interesting thing about self-driving vehicles is that there is a legitimate reason people should never be able to modify the firmware on their vehicles. The risks would be very high.

Tough. We have liability law to cover that.

You'll be screaming to allow modification when your trip is 20 minutes longer because a bunch of rich assholes paid Tesla to route all traffic around their neighborhood.

There is a fallacy of "appeal to authority" here. If it's my property, I'll do as I please with it. Risks? Look at the risks we face with DRM of all kinds and how are rights are reduced and eliminated for the sake of corporate profits.

> But not being able to USE your car for some things? That just screams easy headlines and it's a reason I might not get a Tesla in the future.

Its your car. It's Tesla software. You don't own it, just like you don't own any of the other commercial software you use.

I can't really find fault in it; they deserve the lion's share of the revenue (not Uber, Lyft, or you) if you put the vehicle into their shared ridesharing fleet for profit.

You don't have to put it into their fleet though. But if you do, them the terms.

You know that all car curently always has some form of software in its driving/braking system right?

What's next?

A blender has some kind of timer software in it so you can't use it in commercial unless you are on blender network? A TV has software for programmable channel in it, so you can't use it in your bar unless the TV vendor allow it?

Software is their implementation detail, I buy the resulting whole product.

And just like existing drive by wire vehicles, I don't own that software either.

Tesla is not prohibiting ridesharing. They are requiring the vehicle be in their ridesharing pool if you use their autonomous driving software.

Again, you own the car, not the software. Don't like the license, don't buy the car. Others will.

> Again, you own the car

and I should be able to use it as I see fit.

Then you will have to wait until somebody makes a product that suits your needs. Nobody forces you to buy a car where the autopilot cannot be used for commercial purposes.

I'm sorry that your desires are not congruent with contract law and therefore reality.

Sounds like a good reason to look at changing contract law. I'm wondering what kind of precedent there has been in purchasing products but being forced to agree to a license to actually use the product. My uneducated perspective is that this hasn't been an area of concern until general-purpose computers appeared on the scene.

Edit: It's worth clarifying my opinion. I'm totally alright with software "manufacturers" leasing software to end-users (or, in the case of Tesla, leasing the software inside their rolling computers to drivers). What I take issue with is the notion that there is a "sale" when a license is involved. It's a lease, and I'd like to see the force of law involved in reflecting that fact in the marketplace. Maybe it's splitting hairs, but I think consumers need to be clearly told that they do not own virtually anything that they've purchased that contains a general-purpose computer, and that they should not expect the benefits of ownership (ability to modify, to continue using even when the "manufacturer" has decided to no longer "support" the product, ability to resell, etc) in such a transaction.

I don't really buy into the software licensing bs--it was forced on us without any choices. It is the worst kind of legal bs there is. "You paid for this but you have no rights to it." Uh, yeah, keep thinking that.

You don't have to buy into a law for it to exist and be enforced.

And if you're in the tech industry, that "legal bs" is what allows you to have an income.

I'm pretty sure if first sale doctrine applied to software, almost nothing would change. We're not talking about getting rid of copyright, just the idea that this thing that acts almost exactly like a purchase is not 'really' a purchase.

> And if you're in the tech industry, that "legal bs" is what allows you to have an income.

So what you’re saying is that just because his salary depends upon his not understanding the arguments for this to be “legal bs”, he therefore should voluntarily choose to abstain from understanding them? Upton Sinclair would turn in his grave.

And slave owners are the ones who allowed slaves to eat. That's not an argument that slaves should not fight for their freedom.

Your income is physically earned, not 'allowed' to you by insidious and underhanded legal means.

Comparing a EULA or software ownership to slavery is such an excellent example of technologists being out of touch with the rest of humanity.

Presumably you're aware that comparing one thing to another does not imply that the GP thinks they are anywhere near equivalent. The common meaning of the word "comparable" is not "can be compared", but "roughly equivalent". You are acting as though GP considers them comparable-in-the-second-sense; GP's post actually claims them to be comparable-in-the-first-sense.

A Tesla is not forced upon you, however. If you're wary of the terms, do not buy a Tesla car.

Software has, by the way, always* been this way. I've been "buying software" for twenty years and I've never actually not gotten a license with it rather than the software itself, with all ownership rights conferred to me.

*within the scope of my knowledge and experience

> I can't really find fault in it; they deserve the lion's share of the revenue

Why? I paid them for the car. I should able to use the car however I want.

You can use the car all you want. Go drive for Lyft or Uber. You just can't use the self-driving functionality that way. If you want your car to be making you money by driving people around automatically without you in it, you need to do so using the Tesla Network.

Honestly, this doesn't seem all that unreasonable. Self-driving functionality is presumably a piece of functionality that's heavily dependent upon lots of data that Tesla owns, dependent upon regularly getting software update, etc. Why should Tesla give its data and continued work on software upgrades to you for the purposes of using that for the benefit of one of Tesla's competitors?

Just face it. If you're buying a Tesla, you're not just buying a car, you're buying a software platform and access to lots of data and engineering work that Tesla provides on an ongoing basis. If you want just a car, then don't buy Tesla.

That said, if you are looking to buy a self-driving car and using that self-driving functionality for Uber or Lyft, good luck figuring out how. It would not surprise me if other self-driving cars had similar restrictions (though I guess if Uber sells self-driving cars to the general public then presumably you could use those with Uber, but probably not with Lyft).

Actually you DO own it in EU, and can do whatever you like with it (borrow, sell).

..but not rideshare on autopilot.

It's not unprecedented to have severe restrictions on software in EU. E.g. you can't use le Windows you legally obtained in France on two PCs simultaneously. Some vendors charge per-CPU/core licenses, some network software (e.g. certain PABX) charge even by the number of connected endpoints.

That is probably because in order to install Windows on even one PC (let alone two), you have to make a copy of it. Even if an installation is (somehow) not counted as copying, two identical installations is clearly implying a copy has been made somehow. And copyright means you don’t have permission to copy the software. Therefore, you have to have permission to copy it. Another word for permission is “license”, and the license explicitly says under which conditions you are allowed to copy it.

A car, on the other hand, is not copied after purchase, so a copyright license is not relevant. A “license” (as stated above) is not a general list of conditions you have to agree on; it is simply a list of permissions for you to do what copyright law (and trademark law, etc.) would otherwise not allow you to do. No such law restricts what a buyer is allowed to do with a car after a purchase is made, unless a contract is signed. A contract can state arbitrary restrictions, but for something to be a contract, it has to fulfill a number of conditions: it must be knowingly and willingly entered into by both parties, it must not be unilateral or even, in some jurisdictions, too beneficial to only one party. Clearly your standard so-called “license agreement” does not qualify. Ideally, and usually, a contract is something on paper which both parties sign. Do you sign such a thing when “buying” a Tesla? If so, does this contract allow resale? Does the contract require the reseller to require the second-hand buyer to also sign it?

There is however a business trick to go around this "limitation" of copyright, and that is by using a "server" which the car will call home to (like once a week/month/year), or simply accessing data from on a regular basis. By restricting "access to the server", Tesla can impose any limit they want including restriction on the after market. Owners would also not be allowed to fix their own car to skip the check or talk to a third-party server as that would go against the DMCA anti-circumvention (which is part of US copyright law).

Facebook, Google, Amazon, and every other huge company are huge because of their monopolies. Tesla would be making a massive mistake to not start walling in their garden.

This is a big deal, actually. It's a EULA for cars.

Until it's tested in court, the legality of that restriction is highly questionable. (Which is not to say that you can ignore it with impunity. If you don't have the money for a multi-year lawsuit against a billionaire, you might not want to violate it.)

Presuming that such "EULAs for cars" are not legally binding, the next step will be cars that simply will not do the "forbidden" action, because their software detects and prevents it. Thence comes the next round of lawsuits...

It's different because the self-driving doesn't entirely happen within the vehicle. Tesla maintains a road database to base driving decisions off of and it's assumed you obtain that information from the network.

> Initially, the vehicle fleet will take no action except to note the position of road signs, bridges and other stationary objects, mapping the world according to radar. The car computer will then silently compare when it would have braked to the driver action and upload that to the Tesla database. If several cars drive safely past a given radar object, whether Autopilot is turned on or off, then that object is added to the geocoded whitelist.

So, you will likely be accessing a service to use the self-driving features. At that point, I think it's technically within Tesla's rights to dictate how that service is used.

It might be within their rights, but still a big issue and something that IMO shouldn't be within their rights.

I can understand (and fully agree with) limiting usage that can hurt them (like you cant use their object db in your own non-tesla car, and you can't use it as free storage for images or something), but limiting how you USE the system in a way that it's meant to be used?

I've only ever seen this kind of stuff in shitty B2B programs, and even there it was a big enough issue to deter us. This is a big deal and could really open the floodgates to some really shitty practices.

> If several cars drive safely past a given radar object, whether Autopilot is turned on or off, then that object is added to the geocoded whitelist.

Slightly exaggerating of course, this means that if there are a few locals that routinely blast through a given stop sign, your future Tesla will happily do the same. So much for better safety through automated driving.

All those years marketing departments have preached about the "personality" of car brands, now we might finally get it (an aggregation of driving patterns of the worst of the brand's customers, if it was strictly a whitelist algorithm which I sure don't hope it is)

Which will only last if they're the only ones that can make self-driving cars I would think.

Edit: Though you can have your car join that network sooo. Mostly just means they don't want to sell to Uber, heh.

Nah, the other companies will slap them on too.

People need to fight this BS.

Cue Stallman. This is precisely the motivation for GNU software. How long before GNU (or other prxoy) has an autonomous driving project? Part of the issue is that the dataset is as important as the software. First step would seem to be the construction of a "GNU" hardware pack for autonomous driving and people start driving around with it mounted on their cars, gathering (GPL'd) data.

I'd rather lease a fully autonomous Tesla out in the next 2-3 years in a ridesharing fleet, not wait 5-10 years for an open source version.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."

This seems like an appropriate quote here. If we want to protect our rights we should not settle for conveniences. The software world in 90s is a good example of what happens.

> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."

Being able to read and modify your car's software is hardly an "essential liberty". I'm pretty sure the source of this quote had things like freedom of speech, non-oppression, etc. in mind, not copy-left.

Expecting people to give up material benefits in the present to support idealistic promises in the future leads to disappointment.

People who sanctimoniously insist that other people are engaging in the wrong trade-off between liberty and safety and thus deserve to lose their liberty and safety are the worst enemies of liberty and safety.

True. And besides, what restriction on liberty is there here, really? If you don't like Tesla's terms, don't buy a Tesla.

It's precedent really.

One company does something to fuck over consumers and the others hold their breath for a minute to see what happens, then stampede to do it too.

It's why we have binding arbitration agreements and no right to class action lawsuits in EULAs for game consoles.

It's why we have every company around trying to extract their 30% cut by sticking themselves in as a middle man.

It's why we will end up losing the right to use our cars as we see fit. I don't the buy the argument that it's a "software platform" now. The amount of software in cars has been increasing for decades and this being a bit smarter doesn't suddenly mean that Tesla should get to take this step.

They need to be stopped. It's not some Stallman-esque FOSS zealotry, it's just wanting to preserve the basic concept that I own my car.

Tesla is not even assured of getting self-driving approved in lots of jurisdictions. It's going to be a long uphill battle to get it accepted. They are aware that even well-intentioned owners and modders could get into all sorts of trouble, and that the blame would fall on Tesla and self-driving cars generally, potentially doing great damage to their prospects. They're already under scrutiny.

If you buy a self-driving Tesla in the future, you do own it. Drive it anywhere you like. But the software is under license and may not be used for certain things. Demanding that they open up their software to interfacing with who-knows-what is to demand that they introduce new security measures and functionalities, dependent on unpredictable third parties with unknown properties.

Also, there's an easy way to avoid not feeling like you own your Tesla: don't buy a Tesla. I mean, as of now you really have to go out of your way to get one - so if they're "fucking over consumers" so bad with this, why would you buy it? This isn't something they're springing on you after a purchase, they're warning you years in advance.

> Also, there's an easy way to avoid not feeling like you own your Tesla: don't buy a Tesla. I mean, as of now you really have to go out of your way to get one - so if they're "fucking over consumers" so bad with this, why would you buy it? This isn't something they're springing on you after a purchase, they're warning you years in advance.

I won't, but did you read what I posted? Allowing this to pass unchallenged will hurt everyone.

But the way you challenge it is by not buying into it. The policy is restrictive and perhaps a bit paranoid, sure, but that doesn't mean that it needs to be made illegal. Tesla can't force anyone to buy its cars and if this is such a poor value proposition for most people, then I don't see how it'll succeed. They don't have a monopoly on anything they're doing.

5-10 years seems very optimistic. We've been waiting over 25 years for HURD.

Do people also need to fight the EULA on Microsoft Excel? If not, what is the general principle that should determine when to fight a EULA?

You should fight any EULA that allows you to 'agree' to something without actually having any power to negotiate the terms of the agreement.

That would seem to include the GPL. Is that intended?

Well, the GPL wouldn't be necessary if you could properly negotiate your rights by default.

That would mean every EULA ever made. EULA's aren't ever a negotiation.

Edit: I take it back. See reply.

The last company I worked for negotiated EULAs with contract development Customers. The Customer's price varied according to the rights they requested.

It's certainly the case that most off-the-shelf EULAs aren't open to negotiation because the Customer is often inconsequentially small to the software "manufacturer". Larger Customers (particularly governments) certainly negotiate for license terms with major software "manufacturers", however.

You're right. I was thinking of EULA as just covering the license terms that end users have to accept before using software, which are not a negotiation, as opposed to special licensing terms that are negotiated (which I previously would have considered to just be "a contract"). But after perusing the wikipedia page on EULA, it does appear that specially-negotiated license terms are still a EULA, as EULA really just means a software license agreement.

Yes. EULAs are actually unenforceable in some countries. In Germany for example an EULA, is unenforceable unless you agree to it as part of the sale.

Is there any commercial software that lacks an EULA? Not having one would I think expose the company to risks that any for-profit company is incentivized to minimize (i.e. It wouldn't make sense to not have one).

This is the biggest part of the announcement.

Absolutely monstrous.

I expect, and one of the lawyers reading can probably clarify, that Tesla's liability and risk changes if you're using the car for a commercial venture with their blessing. This specifically says you can't do that, so you're in violation of the terms of service and presumably that is enough to shield them.

If Tesla isn't confident enough in their self-driving service to accept the liability then I doubt it's good enough to be approved for road-use anyway. It sounds like they're trying to set a precedent to kill competition before it starts. Hopefully other self-driving car manufacturers force their hand or kill their business.

Perhaps, but it is not uncommon for example for chip manufacturers to specifically say their parts cannot be used in safety systems without their express written authorization. They are certainly confident their chips work, and they sell them by the bucket full, but if someone dies as a result of using their product that their chips are in, they don't want to be liable. They use those disclaimers to shift liability to the person who designed it in.

There is a funny example of such a disclaimer in the Java license agreement, it says:

"You acknowledge that Software is not designed, licensed or intended for use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any nuclear facility"

Similar restraint is on iTunes.

I remember reading that line a few years ago (when I was new to computers, and actually read EULAs), and wondering how in the world someone would use a music player to design nuclear weapons?

I wonder whether that's some kind of odd safety clause, or an even odder anti-proliferation clause?

Note that they say “using a self-driving Tesla”, not “using a Tesla”. Perhaps it means that they don't want you to use the Tesla in its self-driving mode for revenue purposes but it's still fine to use the Tesla for such purposes if you drive it without using the self-driving features.

Sure. Or else you would see no Uber Teslas right now.

Whoa...reading that doesn't rub me the right way at all. I trust Tesla, though, so maybe I'm misreading/misinterpreting it.

Why do you trust Tesla? In what ways are their interests aligned with yours?

Why would you not trust Tesla? Are their interests not aligned with yours?

Usually companies are mainly interested on getting money from me...

Clearly they aren't, they are trying to limit what I can do with my vehicle.

From an economic perspective there is no difference between a product that can't do X and a product that could do X but it's not enabled or limited in some way.

Implementing logic in an ASIC which cannot be modified and implementing logic with an embedded processor where the software can be modified but this feature is disabled is the same thing. Both are intended to be black boxes that just do one thing and nothing else. Yet for some reason you expect to be able to modify the embedded processor.

Trying to save the planet would be one way.

It's easy to assume that because Tesla is idealistic about climate change they're also idealistic about free software.

So is this confirmation that they are launching essentially a driverless Tesla-brand Uber competitor?

That was already confirmed.

https://www.tesla.com/blog/master-plan-part-deux

"You will also be able to add your car to the Tesla shared fleet just by tapping a button on the Tesla phone app and have it generate income for you while you're at work or on vacation"

... and perhaps legal liability for you, if it's involved in a crash or a passenger injury.

That wouldn't make much sense. Unless you were negligent in some way (modifications, maintenance not done, etc.), I would expect Tesla to be the liable party. The owner is just using a Tesla feature in the way the company intended.

Passenger claims that they severely sprained their ankle by tepping on a kid's toy as they got in. The claim is against the car owner, not Tesla.

In the case of Uber, the driver is there as a witness to dispute their account. In the Tesla case, nobody saw it.

Nobody except the eight cameras on the car

Pointed at the interior?

And if there are, and if Tesla can monitor them, that's a whole nother set of problems...

That is charmingly optimistic.

A significant incident will occur shortly after the network is switched on and Tesla's reaction to that incident will affirm his optimism... Or it will cause their whole business model to fail overnight. Either way.

It's the same rationale that companies like Microsoft use when they say a certain version of Word is for "Home Use Only".

I think I'll wait 15 years until a GPL autopilot comes out. AutGNUpilot?

Do you think that a) Tesla may want to enter that market on their own, or b) Tesla is worried that use in that market may sully their reputation if problems arise?

From their site: "doing so for revenue purposes will only be permissible on the Tesla Network, details of which will be released next year"

This does not leave much room for speculation regarding a), this is basically an announcement of intending to introduce "the Tesla Network" as a player in that market.

Oooooh, is this another "you didn't buy it you're licensing it from us" type of situation a la John Deere tractors? Interesting.

Buy buying this car you actually hailing it from Tesla.

What if you install self-driving linux.

Then they threaten to sue you for industrial espionage, you don’t own the car, only a license to use it (there was a previous HN discussion with someone who got that threatening phone call)