I own an auto repair shop and we have a very expensive ($10,000) snap on diagnostic tool that allows us to see codes and repair information for vehicles, we also pay like $160/month for Alldata so we can look up labor times and instructions.
So i thought the question of buds software very interesting. It was no secret when we bought my Spyder that i owned a repair facility. I traded my polaris rzr for the spyder and had done all the repairs and customization myself and the dealer knew about it all and even asked questions about sources for items they liked.
So when they asked me to buy the maintaince package, of course i laughed in his face....then he tells me "well the buds program is proprietary and you would need that to look up recalls and codes"
well we just figured he was B.S'ing because we have the BA of all BA snapon computers right? WRONG.... can't get into the computer...hmmmm
we have an under the table deal with a dealer that lets us use his computer when we need it to and we do some customization for them a bit cheaper. but i really didn't think much of it till i read this thread...
On the one hand, why would google be forced to show its technology so other companies can compete on a fair playing ground, on the other hand, being a shop owner, why does a dealership get a monopoly on the technology to diagnosis and fix vehicles.
I guess i can see it from both directions, but in the end, the dealership must allow for independent vehicle repair facilities the ability to obtain their technology which allows for fair competition and also allows for better repairs. Toyota and my other half had a coming to jesus talk when engineers at toyota couldn't figure out how to fix our tacoma's transmission. After 2 months, Richard figured it out and now Toyota wants the answer to avoid replacing transmissions at their expense.
As for right to repair... i googled it since i've never heard of a specific law that requires manufacters to release their vehicle technoloy and this is what i found
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr1449
looks like the law status is

ied (Referred to Committee) in a previous session of Congress
I will definately be keeping tabs on this, very interesting debate/issue...