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

51–60 of 268 posts

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

#51

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

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).

I would point towards Oracle v. Rimini, where the Ninth Circuit has specifically ruled (inside a complex and yet-unresolved case) that a system built to interoperate with a copyrighted program does not constitute a derivative work of that program. (https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/12/16/2...)

They reference a less on point but better known case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Galoob_Toys,_Inc._v._Nin...., for some reason you have to manually add the period at the end of the link) about whether NES cheat cartridges were copyright infringement. If a work that directly links to and interoperates with a program is a derivative work of that program, the Game Genie really was illegal after all. To me that doesn't seem right, and given the FSF's general opinion on console restrictions (https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2025/winter/new-nintendo-drm-ba...) I kinda feel like they'd have to agree.

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

#52

Post by TZubiri »

teddyh wrote: post #6

> I then decided to contact Insulet to get the kernel source code for it, being GPLv2 licensed, they're obligated to provide it. This is technically not true. It is an oversimplification of the common case, but what actually normally should happen is that: 1. The GPL requires the company to send the user a written offer of source code. 2. The user uses this offer to request the source code from the company. 3. If the…

> This is not a GPL violation; it is a straight contract violation

But GPL is a contract

I think the distinction you are pointing would be between a gpl licensor-licensee contract, rather than a licensee-user contract.

(IANAL)

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

#53

Post by lucb1e »

abigail95 wrote: post #46
robomartin wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Is that also what it costs when you lose and the court makes you pay their lawyer time?

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

#54

Post by JoshTriplett »

teddyh wrote: post #6

> I then decided to contact Insulet to get the kernel source code for it, being GPLv2 licensed, they're obligated to provide it. This is technically not true. It is an oversimplification of the common case, but what actually normally should happen is that: 1. The GPL requires the company to send the user a written offer of source code. 2. The user uses this offer to request the source code from the company. 3. If the…

This is an open legal question, which the Conservancy v Vizio case will hopefully change; in that case, Conservancy is arguing that consumers have the right to enforce the GPL in order to receive source code.

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

#55

Post by abigail95 »

lucb1e wrote: post #53
abigail95 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Is that also what it costs when you lose and the court makes you pay their lawyer time?

Use the CCB then?

Edit: I'm somewhat mad that there's all these tools out there to solve the screeching about GPL violations and nobody seems to want to use them.

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

#56

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?

$405

https://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/attorney-inf...

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

#57

Post by opello »

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.

I agree that a front-line CSR or even engineer is not likely the right person, but surely then the responsible action is to redirect the request to the responsible department or person?

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

#58

Post by cxr »

kgwxd wrote: post #35
jstanley wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying that in the general case if you send someone a written offer for something and then don't honour it, you are in breach of contract? That doesn't sound right to me. A written offer is not the same thing as a contract.

I think they're just saying the GPL doesn't really cover consumer/distributor (dis)agreements, it only covers copyright. While the spirit of the GPL is user-first, it still has to be realized within the confines of copyright law. Even though many people might conflate the spiritual goal and the legal agreement, it doesn't grant "users" any extraordinary legal powers. It's not illegal to not honor written offers, it's…

That's not what they're saying.

On the shelves are three insulin pumps: one with a 5-year warranty, one at a bargain barrel price that comes with no warranty, and one accompanied by a written offer allowing you to obtain the source code (and, subject to the terms of the GPL, prepare your own derivative works) at no additional charge any time within the next three years.

Weighing your options, you go with pump #3. You write to the company asking for the GPL source. They say "nix". They're in breach.

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

#59

Post by abigail95 »

austhrow743 wrote: post #50
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.

Then why are they trying to enforce copyright/contract law without standing?

Making a blog post about someone elses copyright being violated is even more annoying to me.

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

#60

Post by austhrow743 »

abigail95 wrote: post #59
austhrow743 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Then why are they trying to enforce copyright/contract law without standing? Making a blog post about someone elses copyright being violated is even more annoying to me.

Huh, they’re not. You’re the one saying they should.
Post reply on HN