I'm confused. Surely you can install the modified software? It's just that now the local jurisdiction may not allow you to use your car on public roads. That's a bummer, but a political problem that exists between the user and his government, not a software problem between the user and the car manufacturer?

Not if it is a certification requirement that the system prevents the installation of modified software that's not certified, which is what's claimed.

Ahh! Got it. That's sad. One would hope that the law could instead shift this burden onto the whoever modifies the software :-/

If the firmware is burned into ROMs at the manufacturing plant, how do you propose the car owner installs their modified version? Do we need to force all parts manufacturers to put ROM burners hardware and (replacable) firmware into every part, and OEMS to provide consolidated hardware interfaces to allow that, and car manufacturers to dedicate all the infrastructure required to allow access to all the OEMS who allow access to all the parts for all the various firmware updates?

Sure. Starting price for a car would be several years salary but at least you could abide by GPLv3 licensing should any part manufacturer choose to use it.

> If the firmware is burned into ROMs at the manufacturing plant,

then you do not need to make it modifiable under GPLv3. It explicitly states that.

anyways, it's generally not, expect any Linux system in a car to run from flash memory.

Very little outside of the in-dash infotainment system runs on Linux in a car.

I deal with manufacturers and OEMs putting software in cars for a living. I am not speculating, I am just reporting the reasons they tell me they will not accept any GPLv3 software for anything that gets loaded into their target devices.

Either;

1. They are lying, and spreading FUD about regulations and licenses as an excuse to hide the real reason why they don't want to let user install their software. (Eg, because options costs extra and if it was free software one could install it for free)

2. Or, they are mistaken and don't understand the license. Maybe the cost to use alternative is less than the cost of figuring out.

3. They are right and that is a sad reality that the government give more power to companies than power to end users for things they owe.

Since you mentioned something about the ROM which was clearly false, that could very well be option 1 or 2.

I mean, why would the gouvernement want to restrict users to update the GPS software or the media player?

I think that's a problem of interpretation more than a hard obstacle.

In many projects there is the requirement of a fixed release for 3rd party dependencies, versions for which all tests have been checked to pass (this is what is done in NodeJS with packages.json). There is even a requirement of reproducible build sometimes (like with the ongoing project to reach full reproducibility in Debian builds).

Wouldn't these fit the same thinking pattern as the requirements of certification of software for the industry?

I'd love to hear RMS on this subject, maybe he would, too, say that the solution exists inside of GPL3 rather than outside of it.

I'm sure there are ways to solve it, but they probably require both lawyering and developing technical solutions, which unfortunately the industry isn't much interested in doing, partly because there isn't enough pressure directed at them to change the course of things. Such pressure, in my understanding has to come from the regulators, but for that to happen they need to be convinced this is the right thing to do, and that isn't an easy task.