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

61–70 of 268 posts

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

#61

Post by immibis »

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…

In America, maybe this is the case. In Germany, it seems an end user can sue them directly for source code.

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

#63

Post by immibis »

abdullahkhalids wrote: post #41
teddyh wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So according to the legal theory expressed in this thread so far, nobody can sue anybody and there's no obligation to provide source code. The copyright holder couldn't sue because the license was followed (an offer was provided) and the end user couldn't sue because the offer doesn't have to be followed up on.

Or, instead of theorycrafting reasons why it shouldn't work, you could "just" sue them and see if the judge agrees.

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

#64

Post by immibis »

abigail95 wrote: post #49
teddyh wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

until you actually sue them, all you have are guesses, and you miss all shots you don't take

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

#65

Post by TZubiri »

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…

So gpl is a licensor-licensee contract, if code and license is not shared to the user, then there is no contract to which the user is a party, rather the user is a beneficiary.

The offer of source code seems to be a way to facilitate the conveyance of source code through opt-in means separately from the object code rather than some legal trickery to create a user-licensee contract.

While the offer may indeed convey a licensee-user obligation, a compliant distribution would attach a license anyway, converting the user into a licensee and licensor to licensee in a recursive fashion

I wonder if lawyers specialize in this, it sounds very cool and not at all standard law, but somehow compatible with contract law

IANAL

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

#68

Post by cxr »

pvtmert wrote: post #48

If they built the kernel directly from tree, just pointing out the correct https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/lin... should be enough...

Since a company building it themselves hasn't gotten it in the form of a binary from someone else that they're just passing along to you and their use is commercial, they don't satisfy either condition of GPLv2 3(c), but they'd need to satisfy both in order to be able to exercise that option.

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

#69

Post by singpolyma3 »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #54
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.

The argument here is that, if there is an offer, they already do under standard contract law.

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

#70

Post by abigail95 »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #51
teddyh wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,_…

Galoob is terrible for the FSF because it provides for a program that only exists to enhance another.

That doesn't fit into the dynamic linking absolutists worldview at all.

Post reply on HN