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.