Re: The role of FOSS in preventing a recurrence of vehicle emissions scandals

[Lars Noodén]

On 5/9/23 07:32, J.B. Nicholson wrote:
[snip]
> The punishment for this fraud did not include mandating free software.
> As far as I know, none of the victimized customers ended up with free
> software car firmware and the means to update applicable cars to a libre
> version of that software (no TiVOization allowed). I'm not interested in
> how many anyone thinks would have used it, as that's a side issue and
> pure speculation. I'm interested in what the public should have demanded
> and what the public should still receive.
>
> Demanding software freedom is eminent sense if we are genuinely trying
> to "[prevent] a recurrence of vehicle emissions scandals" as is the
> subject of this thread. One should want the car owners to be free to run
> their cars as they wish and to also let publishers know that their
> illegal collusion will be punished by losing that proprietary control.
[snip]

My guess would be that one or both of these committees would be the
right ones to contact:

 "Committee on Transport and Tourism"
 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/tran/home/highlights

 "Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety"
 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/envi/home/highlights

Sure, individuals can write but there can be merit in having a
professional organization (or several) make the contact and work towards
software freedom in vehicle ECMs.

/Lars