Technology

59116 readers

3845 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

1297

Mazda's $10 subscription for remote start sparks backlash after killing open source workaround via DMCA takedown (www.carscoops.com)

submitted 3 weeks ago by ForgottenFlux@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

272 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Mazda recently surprised customers by requiring them to sign up for a subscription in order to keep certain services. Now, notable right-to-repair advocate Louis Rossmann is calling out the brand.

It’s important to clarify that there are two very different types of remote start we’re talking about here. The first type is the one many people are familiar with where you use the key fob to start the vehicle. The second method involves using another device like a smartphone to start the car. In the latter, connected services do the heavy lifting.

Transition to paid services

What is wild is that Mazda used to offer the first option on the fob. Now, it only offers the second kind, where one starts the car via phone through its connected services for a $10 monthly subscription, which comes to $120 a year. Rossmann points out that one individual, Brandon Rorthweiler, developed a workaround in 2023 to enable remote start without Mazda’s subscription fees.

However, according to Ars Technica, Mazda filed a DMCA takedown notice to kill that open-source project. The company claimed it contained code that violated “[Mazda’s] copyright ownership” and used “certain Mazda information, including proprietary API information.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee 48 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Someone very rich who doesn't feel the need to get arbitrarily richer.

So no one.

[–] madcaesar@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago

An ethical billionaire?

Yea, no one is right.

[–] mindaika@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I’d be cool with starting a car company for as little as $1M salary; I don’t even need equity, just a couple hundred mil to get it started

[–] milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee 1 points 3 weeks ago

I don't think 2mil is enough to make a factory capable of making cars that can compete economically with mass-produced cars. More of a hobby project, I imagine. But if you can do it, even on a small scale - go ahead! That'd be great! Make the world a better place one bit at a time.

Also to some of us (myself included) 1M salary and 2M equity is already through-the-roof rich!

[–] BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

There are definitely open source-ish options. Google locost 7

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl -1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't think "ish" is a thing. Either the sources are provided openly under a libre license, or they are not.

What license does the locost 7 release their designs under?

[–] BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Locost 7 is a generic name for replica Lotus/Caterham 7 type cars that are built by people in garages, there's no centralised body beyond "The Book" the original design came from. As far as I'm aware the book's author has defended the design in court as being too generic to be protectable (which presumably precludes their design being used as a basis to prosecute anyone building something similar).

Most of the cars are built custom to the donor vehicle, taking the original design as a basis, there's 100s of variations online with drawings - none of them are going to be protectable and no-one's really tried in the 30 odd years since the book came out. No-one's published anything with a libre license, I'm not sure if there'd be any point.

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 0 points 3 weeks ago

If the author licenses the book under a creative commons or other libre license, its open source. If not, its not open source hardware.

If the author would just announce that the book is licensed openly, then it would liberate lots of other orgs to be able to include his work in their work. Otherwise this is a dead end for other open hardware manufacturers