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

81–90 of 268 posts

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

#81

Post by schmuckonwheels »

cxr wrote: post #58
kgwxd wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The GPLv2 under which Linux is licensed does not prohibit that insulin pump from bricking itself if you tried to install "your own derivative work" that wasn't signed by the manufacturer.

This is not only possible but also prudent for a device which can also kill you.

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

#82

Post by teddyh »

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.

If you carefully read what I wrote, you will notice that I never claimed otherwise. Whether or not third parties have standing to sue on a GPL violation is immaterial to my point, none of which is “an open question”.

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

#83

Post by jacquesm »

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…

There are a lot of people hacking on insulin pumps and they are lightyears ahead of commerce. If you want a very interesting rabbit hole to dive into try 'artificial pancreas hacking' as google feed.

One interesting link:

https://www.drugtopics.com/view/hacking-diabetes-the-diy-bio...

I would trust the people that hack on these systems to be even more motivated than the manufacturers to make sure they don't fuck up, it's the equivalent of flying a plane you built yourself.

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

#84

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

schmuckonwheels wrote: post #80
ryandrake wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It doesn't matter what form it takes. Compiled binaries of GPL code are being distributed. The recipients of that binary are entitled to the source of the GPL portions in a usable form:

  "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable."
The GPL here doesn't extend beyond the kernel boundary. Userland is isolated unless they have GPL code linked in there as well. If they were careless about the linkage boundaries then that's on them.

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

#85

Post by JoshTriplett »

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…

> Linus rants

Linus is arguing against a strawman that Conservancy never actually argued. See https://sfconservancy.org/news/2025/dec/24/vizio-msa-irrelev... for details.

> Which brings us to the question: what is this guy going to do with (presumably) the kernel source?

https://openaps.org/

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

#86

Post by fn-mote »

schmuckonwheels wrote: post #81
cxr wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The GPLv2 under which Linux is licensed does not prohibit that insulin pump from bricking itself if you tried to install "your own derivative work" that wasn't signed by the manufacturer. This is not only possible but also prudent for a device which can also kill you.

Possibly true, but irrelevant to the post to which you are replying.

The argument is over providing you the source code.

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

#87

Post by teddyh »

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.

Rather crucially, the license itself does not say that you have the right to the source code. It is only the separate written offer which gives you that right. If you did not receive such an offer, you don’t have any right to it. But then, the company has already, unquestionably, violated the GPL, and the company can be sued immediately. Specifically, you don’t have to first ask the company for the source code! The lack of a written offer is in itself a clear violation.

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

#88

Post by schmuckonwheels »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #84
schmuckonwheels wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It doesn't matter what form it takes. Compiled binaries of GPL code are being distributed. The recipients of that binary are entitled to the source of the GPL portions in a usable form: "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definit…

The recipient of that object code is the medical device supplier, not the end-user.

It's subsequently transferred to you after presenting a prescription, without any accompanying offer of source code.

In other words, assume you are the second owner in all cases when it comes to certified medical equipment.

AFAIK if you find an Android phone in the trash, you are not entitled to source either since you never received the offer of source during a purchase transaction. You know that little slip of paper you toss as soon as you open some new electronics that says "Open Source Software Notice".

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

#89

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

abigail95 wrote: post #70
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ehh, I'm not sure it's fair to call the FSF dynamic linking absolutists. They only care about any of this because they've boxed themselves into a corner. They want to prevent people from writing proprietary wrappers around copyleft programs, but they don't want a license so restrictive that proprietary and copyleft programs are forbidden from interacting, and Freedom 0 means they can't explicitly prohibit a copyleft program from being used for suchandsuch purpose.

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

#90

Post by teddyh »

TZubiri wrote: post #52
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)

> But GPL is a contract

Not according to the original reasoning by its creators, but opinions differ wildly. However, this is irrelevant to the point; the written offer, which is separate from the GPL, is what is failing to be honored, not the GPL. If you did not receive such a written offer, the GPL, in itself, makes no guarantee that you have the right to the source code.

Post reply on HN