On Sat, 2023-05-06 at 16:58 +0300, Lars Noodén wrote: > Recent news¹ reminds us that back in 2015 a whistleblower exposed the > VW/Audi emissions scandal, which I guess had been going on since > 1999. > The companies executives used closed source, proprietary software in > the > vehicles to hide the fact that the vehicles were emitting 40 times > the > allowed NOx when actually out on the roads and not in the testing > centers. Even with fines and prison sentences, there is no way to be > sure the companies are not working on more of the same -- unless the > development is done out in the open. > > Clearly we see both physical and economic harm from neglecting to > require FOSS even in embedded computers, such as the 100+ now found > in > each new car. because these companies have already shown that the > closed source model *cannot* be trusted such style of development > should > not be allowed any more in regards to vehicles. Surely a FOSS-based > workflow can be figured out. > > Perhaps it is a timely and appropriate topic for institutions like > FSF, > OSI, EFFI, and so on to address that publicly? Even a short > statement > in passing would at least raise awareness and provide an opportunity > to > ratchet things forward in regard to Software Freedom. > > /Lars >
remember this scandal very well. There is a large incentive for car companies not to use Free Software on their embedded controllers. The emissions problem you highlight actually has a reverse effect if ANYONE can change or modify those programs. The intention of using Free Software on the controller to allow everyone to see what the code is telling the vehicle to do is good but given the ability for anyone to change the code and install their changes opens the door for those that don't care about emissions to tune their engine for performance instead of emissions. It could be argued that there are ways to avoid that, and I'm sure there are but how complex does that become? The car manufacturers also have a business model setup for repair of vehicles so allowing just anyone to tinker with the way their ECM works destroys their "control". While Free Software advocates realize the benefits of having Free Software, it will take a lot of effort to get a corporation to give up one of their revenue streams. Look at John Deere ( https://stallman.org/archives/2022-nov-feb.html#18_January_2023_(Right_to_repair,_John_Deere) ) for example. Back in the day, before ECMs and computer control, one could tune their engine any way they chose. If you needed to pass an emissions test you would make sure your engine was setup to do just that, but then you could change it back after the test was passed. The inaccurate fuel and air metering that allowed that just isn't efficient enough to even make a car reliable without constant tuning let alone allow accurate emissions controls. Computer control was really the only way to get the job done. If we want control of those computers through Free Software we have a long battle ahead. I think there are solutions to be talked about. The next frontier though, is electric. With Electric has come the concept of "subscription features" and self driving. I think we need to address those issues every bit as much as we would need to regulate the management of software on ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) vehicles. This is a good discussion and one worth having. I hope this thread continues and some good ideas are born from it. Regards Matt -- "Under the sky, under the heavens there is but one family." --Bruce Lee _______________________________________________ libreplanet-discuss mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
