Is an open-source pacemaker safer than closed-source? • Hacker News Board

Re: Is an open-source pacemaker safer than closed-source?

#21

Post by derleth » Fri, May 11, 2012, 5:02 PM UTC

josefonseca wrote: post #19

How about the microcode on the CPU running the pacemaker's code?

Unless the CPU is a one-off pacemaker-only design, the arguments for open-source here are stronger because orders of magnitude more people would have a reason to look at the code and possibly improve it.

Re: Is an open-source pacemaker safer than closed-source?

#22

Post by ctdonath » Fri, May 11, 2012, 6:18 PM UTC

cullen wrote: post #15

ctdonath wrote: post #10

An under-discussed point is change control on life-support software. No doctor will want to be associated with installation of a life-support device which the patient can reprogram at will. Every change, starting from creation of the first blank main.c file, MUST be documented as considered, deliberated, implemented, reviewed, tested, verified, validated, and documented by certified personnel to the satisfaction of e…

An open-source life-support device need not necessarily be reprogrammable by the consumer.

RMS: The only way I could justify this is if I began developing a free replacement for that very program. It is ok to use a nonfree program for the purpose of developing its free replacement.

Developing a free replacement software for a pacemaker is kinda pointless without the ability for the consumer to reprogram it.

Re: Is an open-source pacemaker safer than closed-source?

#23

Post by TazeTSchnitzel » Fri, May 11, 2012, 6:19 PM UTC

cullen wrote: post #15

ctdonath wrote: post #10

An under-discussed point is change control on life-support software. No doctor will want to be associated with installation of a life-support device which the patient can reprogram at will. Every change, starting from creation of the first blank main.c file, MUST be documented as considered, deliberated, implemented, reviewed, tested, verified, validated, and documented by certified personnel to the satisfaction of e…

An open-source life-support device need not necessarily be reprogrammable by the consumer.

Whilst Richard Stallman and his GPLv3 would like it to be so, you're correct that this isn't the point. It's not supposed to be reprogrammable by the consumer, but the consumer should be able to know what code is running on it.