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

71–80 of 268 posts

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

#71

Post by abigail95 »

austhrow743 wrote: post #60
abigail95 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What's their basis for sending the emails then? If not one of legal standing in copyright/contract law?

Edit: My point is this is just another one of many annoying people you have to deal with who will email you alleging all sorts of legal violations, who don't themselves understand anything about the claims they are making.

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

#72

Post by dilyevsky »

jimrandomh wrote: post #29

If the only GPLed component used is the Linux kernel, you probably aren't entitled to any noteworthy source code. It's well established that using the kernel doesn't create a GPL requirement userspace software running on the same device, and the most likely arrangement here is a completely-uncustomized kernel paired with an open-source userspace program that does all the interesting bits.

It also doesn’t apply to driver modules if you use gpl shim (eg nvidia drivers and many others) so i dont get why author thinks they violate anything

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

#73

Post by austhrow743 »

abigail95 wrote: post #71
austhrow743 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh, they’re not. You’re the one saying they should.

What's their basis for sending the emails then? If not one of legal standing in copyright/contract law? Edit: My point is this is just another one of many annoying people you have to deal with who will email you alleging all sorts of legal violations, who don't themselves understand anything about the claims they are making.

Basis? You mean reason?

They want the Linux kernel source code.

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

#74

Post by schmuckonwheels »

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.

This got buried on HN a few days ago which is a shame:

https://social.kernel.org/notice/B1aR6QFuzksLVSyBZQ

Linus rants that the SFC is wrong and argues that the GPLv2 which the kernel is licensed under does NOT force you to open your hardware. The spirit of the GPLv2 was about contributing software improvements back to the community.

Which brings us to the question: what is this guy going to do with (presumably) the kernel source? Force the Chinese to contribute back their improvements to the kernel? Of which there are likely none. Try and run custom software on his medical device which can likely kill him? More than likely.

The judge's comments on the Vizio case are such that should this guy get his hands on the code, he has no right to modify/reinstall it AND expect it will continue to operate as an insulin pump.

This is about as ridiculous as buying a ticket on an airplane and thinking you are entitled to the source code of the Linux in-seat entertainment system.

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

#75

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#76

Post by apublicfrog »

abigail95 wrote: post #55
lucb1e wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

For reference for non Americans/non legal people:

> The Copyright Claims Board (CCB) is available to resolve copyright disputes of a relatively low economic value and provides an efficient, less expensive alternative to federal court.

https://ccb.gov/

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

#77

Post by ww520 »

jstanley wrote: post #11
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…

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.

The customer spends money to buy the product along with the source code offered. It's part of the transaction. Not honoring part of the transaction is a breach of contract.

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

#78

Post by ryandrake »

schmuckonwheels wrote: post #74
JoshTriplett wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This got buried on HN a few days ago which is a shame: https://social.kernel.org/notice/B1aR6QFuzksLVSyBZQ Linus rants that the SFC is wrong and argues that the GPLv2 which the kernel is licensed under does NOT force you to open your hardware. The spirit of the GPLv2 was about contributing software improvements back to the community. Which brings us to the question: what is this guy going to do with (presumably) the…

Why is it ridiculous? If the license says you have the right to obtain the source code to software that was distributed to you, then you have the right to obtain the source code. It doesn't matter what your intended use of it is.

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

#79

Post by woah »

jstanley wrote: post #11
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…

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.

And what are the damages?

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

#80

Post by schmuckonwheels »

ryandrake wrote: post #78
schmuckonwheels wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This got buried on HN a few days ago which is a shame: https://social.kernel.org/notice/B1aR6QFuzksLVSyBZQ Linus rants that the SFC is wrong and argues that the GPLv2 which the kernel is licensed under does NOT force you to open your hardware. The spirit of the GPLv2 was about contributing software improvements back to the community. Which brings us to the question: what is this guy going to do with (presumably) the…

Why is it ridiculous? If the license says you have the right to obtain the source code to software that was distributed to you, then you have the right to obtain the source code. It doesn't matter what your intended use of it is.

It's a medical device that requires a prescription. You can't buy it off the shelf. They're not distributing software to you either. You must go through a medical equipment supplier who transfers the device to you after insurance has paid for some or all of it.

For the same reason you can't find an airplane entertainment system in the trash and call up the company and demand source code.

Post reply on HN