Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

My insulin pump controller uses the Linux kernel. It also violates the GPL

old.reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 268 posts

Re: My insulin pump controller uses the Linux kernel. It also violates the GPL

#41

Post by abdullahkhalids »

teddyh wrote: post #40
abdullahkhalids wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From section 4 [1] > If distribution of object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place satisfies the requirement to distribute the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code. Similar clauses in Sec 6. [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.htm…

That section (and similar in section 6d) is not about the written offer of source code. The written offer of source code is instead covered in section 6c.

Ah.. Thanks

> c) Accompany the work with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give the same user the materials specified in Subsection 6a, above, for a charge no more than the cost of performing this distribution.

Re: My insulin pump controller uses the Linux kernel. It also violates the GPL

#42

Post by ozim »

Aurornis wrote: post #12
whatshisface wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not company property.

Support staff or even engineers are not in a position to be making that call. It’s a legal department decision, even if it seems obvious to you.

This should be the most upvoted answer.

Yeah there are are startups where head guys don’t know that and developers jump the gun because they feel like they’re ones that have the best understanding of the issue at hand.

But of course that’s legal territory.

Re: My insulin pump controller uses the Linux kernel. It also violates the GPL

#43

Post by juped »

teddyh wrote: post #26
Aurornis wrote: post #10

Be sure to read the top comment where someone who claims to have worked for the company provides some inside information. In my experience, this is quite common when the development of hardware is viewed as a cost center and is outsourced to various providers and teams. Those providers and teams churn a lot and nobody who worked on that is likely still involved with the company via contracts or direct employment. Fro…

> 7 out 10 times, the person on the other end was angry because they assumed the GPL entitled them to all of our source code and they were disappointed when they only found GPL code in the tarball. Well, if your non-GPL code was directly linked to, or closely interoperated with, any GPL code, those users would have been right.

Richard Stallman is wrong about linking.

Re: My insulin pump controller uses the Linux kernel. It also violates the GPL

#44

Post by treesknees »

whatshisface wrote: post #7
anigbrowl wrote: post #5

As always, the solution is to contact their legal department, preferably via a lawyer. Engineers and support staff are not going to risk their jobs making legal decisions about giving away company property. The FSF could help a lot here by publishing demand letter templates outlining the statutory and precedential basis for license enforcement and recovery of damages.

It is not company property.

That really depends. A company can still own the copyright to the code that they’ve written, even if it’s licensed with GPL. It’s an asset that is transferred if the company is sold, etc, so yes, it’s actually company property.

The GPL grants rights to use and distribute, but does not grant ownership. It’s not suddenly in the public domain.

Re: My insulin pump controller uses the Linux kernel. It also violates the GPL

#45

Post by teddyh »

juped wrote: post #43
teddyh wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 7 out 10 times, the person on the other end was angry because they assumed the GPL entitled them to all of our source code and they were disappointed when they only found GPL code in the tarball. Well, if your non-GPL code was directly linked to, or closely interoperated with, any GPL code, those users would have been right.

Richard Stallman is wrong about linking.

As far as I understand it, Richard Stallman has gotten his view about linking from FSF’s lawyers, who has advised the FSF about what does and does not count as a “derived work”, in the sense of US copyright law.

If you want to argue that the FSF’s lawyers are wrong, please provide more detailed, and hopefully referenced, arguments (as opposed to plain assertions).

Re: My insulin pump controller uses the Linux kernel. It also violates the GPL

#46

Post by abigail95 »

robomartin wrote: post #32
abigail95 wrote: post #25

I get mad triggered by software license violation discussions. Please for the love of all that the FSF thinks is holy - just file a damn lawsuit if you are telling me they are violating the law. State your claim and have a court sort it out. It costs hundreds of dollars. For a medical device? Seems like a good deal.

In what planet does a lawsuit cost hundreds of dollars?

This one. That's what the filing fees are for a lawsuit like this. There's no rule saying you have to pay a lawyer to write a statement of claim.

Edit:

Courts deal with contract law disputes all the time. It's their bread and butter, everyday, nothing special stuff.

Edit2:

To you below, citation needed

Re: My insulin pump controller uses the Linux kernel. It also violates the GPL

#47

Post by Retric »

jstanley wrote: post #22
teddyh wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it’s not technically “breach of contract”, and an offer might or might not be a contract. But if you don’t honor an offer you made, you must surely be guilty of something. Otherwise, all offers would be meaningless and worth nothing.

I don't think you're guilty of anything for failing to honour an offer in most cases.

An offer is legally binding in that when someone acts based on that offer you can be liable for damages.

This does not force you to honor the original offer though.

Re: My insulin pump controller uses the Linux kernel. It also violates the GPL

#49

Post by abigail95 »

teddyh wrote: post #45
juped wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Richard Stallman is wrong about linking.

As far as I understand it, Richard Stallman has gotten his view about linking from FSF’s lawyers, who has advised the FSF about what does and does not count as a “derived work”, in the sense of US copyright law. If you want to argue that the FSF’s lawyers are wrong, please provide more detailed, and hopefully referenced, arguments (as opposed to plain assertions).

FSF has opinions but not case law - anyone else's opinion is as valid, there's no citation because no court has ruled that dynamic linking is or isn't a derivative work.

You have to construct your own view based on existing statute and vaguely related cases.

Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. 1 (2021) is not a pro-FSF opinion.

Whether linking (dynamic or not) is a derivative work is defined by things like incorporation, similarity, and creative expression.

I think the FSF view is unreasonably confident in its public opinions where the current law is that each potential infraction is going to be decided on a case by case basis. Read 17 USC 101 for yourself and square that with FSF/Stallman opinions.

There's too much nuance to have a stance about what happens when you link a program. "It depends" is the only thing you can say.

Re: My insulin pump controller uses the Linux kernel. It also violates the GPL

#50

Post by austhrow743 »

abigail95 wrote: post #25

I get mad triggered by software license violation discussions. Please for the love of all that the FSF thinks is holy - just file a damn lawsuit if you are telling me they are violating the law. State your claim and have a court sort it out. It costs hundreds of dollars. For a medical device? Seems like a good deal.

The OP almost certainly isn’t a copyright holder for the Linux kernel. They probably would have said if they were.
Post reply on HN