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

101–110 of 268 posts

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

#101

Post by JoshTriplett »

schmuckonwheels wrote: post #92
teddyh wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> But then, the company has already, unquestionably, violated the GPL, and the company can be sued immediately. You were right up to this point. Medical devices requiring a prescription must be obtained via specialized suppliers, like a pharmacy for hardware. These appliances are not sold directly to end users because they can be dangerous if misused. This includes even CPAP machines. In theory, that written offer on…

> When the device is transferred or resold to you, it need not be accompanied by the offer of source.

This is false. The person transferring the device must either pass along the offer they received (GPLv2 clause 3(c), and only if performing non-commercial redistribution), or pass along the source code (GPLv2 clause 3(a)).

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

#102

Post by cj »

austhrow743 wrote: post #73
abigail95 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, he means basis, not reason. There's a difference and I'm genuinely curious in your answer.

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

#103

Post by Joker_vD »

dspillett wrote: post #16
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.

The written offer is part of the licence, as is the need to respond to that offer with the source code offered. It is all part of the same agreement. A written offer on its own would not normally be directly enforceable in many (most?) jurisdictions, for the same sort of reason that retailers can't be held to incorrectly published prices (in the UK at least, a displayed price is an “invitation to tender”, not a contr…

> the same sort of reason that retailers can't be held to incorrectly published prices (in the UK at least, a displayed price is an “invitation to tender”, not a contract or other promise)

The hell? Over here, the price tags are a sort of public contract, to which the seller pre-commits. The seller forgot to change the tags? That's not the buyer's problem.

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

#104

Post by AnthonyMouse »

gpm wrote: post #98
teddyh wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If that was true, anyone reselling an Android phone could open themselves up to legal liability. That’s only an appeal to ridicule. If those are valid, here’s an opposing one: If this is not true, then any company can violate the GPL all it likes just by funneling all its products through a second company, like a reseller.

Here's an appeal to the law, the doctrine of copyright exhaustion (also known as the first sale doctrine) dictates that copyright is exhausted upon the first sale of the device (i.e. to the distributor) and they have no rights to control or prevent further sales. That the GPL potentially fails to achieve what it intends to is neither a legal argument, nor particularly surprising.

Wouldn't that imply that end-user license agreements are all unenforceable because the software was sold through a retailer, and even if it wasn't you could just a get a secondhand copy?

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

#105

Post by gpm »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #101
schmuckonwheels wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But then, the company has already, unquestionably, violated the GPL, and the company can be sued immediately. You were right up to this point. Medical devices requiring a prescription must be obtained via specialized suppliers, like a pharmacy for hardware. These appliances are not sold directly to end users because they can be dangerous if misused. This includes even CPAP machines. In theory, that written offer on…

> When the device is transferred or resold to you, it need not be accompanied by the offer of source. This is false. The person transferring the device must either pass along the offer they received (GPLv2 clause 3(c), and only if performing non-commercial redistribution), or pass along the source code (GPLv2 clause 3(a)).

By my understanding under US law first sale doctrine means that 3 (both (a) and (c)) doesn't apply, copyright has been exhausted and the intermediate party here doesn't need a license at all to sell the device on. Even if you want to argue the GPL is a contract and not just a license the intermediate owner has never been required to become a party to it. Even if for some reason they agreed to the contract - and somehow it was a binding contract despite the complete lack of consideration - it seems unlikely that the courts would interpret 3 to apply because reselling a device isn't "distributing" within the meaning of copyright law because of first sale doctrine.

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

#106

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

schmuckonwheels wrote: post #88
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So when I buy a product with GPL code via Amazon, Amazon is the one with the rights to receive the source? That medical supplier is getting paid via the medical coverage the end user is paying for.

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

#107

Post by gpm »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #104
gpm wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's an appeal to the law, the doctrine of copyright exhaustion (also known as the first sale doctrine) dictates that copyright is exhausted upon the first sale of the device (i.e. to the distributor) and they have no rights to control or prevent further sales. That the GPL potentially fails to achieve what it intends to is neither a legal argument, nor particularly surprising.

Wouldn't that imply that end-user license agreements are all unenforceable because the software was sold through a retailer, and even if it wasn't you could just a get a secondhand copy?

By my understanding EULAs are based on contract law and having a clickwrap agreement that requires you agree to it before using the software, not copyright law. Except perhaps to the extent that copyright law would prevent you from creating a derivative work that doesn't require you to agree to that clickwrap agreement prior to using the software.

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

#108

Post by jonway »

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…

Big disagree, if they distribute the code they’re on the hook for the gpl source, too!

That’s about as ridiculous as buying a plane and knowing you’re entitled to the gpl sources used.

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

#109

Post by Nextgrid »

kkjjjjw wrote: post #33
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.

Then it should be trivial for them to provide the source code.

It's trivial in terms that it will cost them nothing, because it's very likely there are no changes to the kernel, or nothing of value nor commercially-sensitive anyway.

It's not trivial in terms of big company bureaucracy - this request will have to go through so many levels of red tape that they (correctly) decided not complying to random people's requests is more profitable.

I'm sure if you actually sue them then they will comply right away, because at that point paying for some engineer's time to tar up the source tree and send it to you now becomes cheaper than lawyer time.

But their analysis is correct in that nobody will waste time/money suing to get what is effectively a stock kernel they can get from the official source anyway. Which is why these complaints are also a bit stupid - they're not asking for anything of value or using the GPL to advance software freedom by freeing up some valuable code, they're just wasting both theirs and others' time asking for something they can already download directly.

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

#110

Post by iinnPP »

schmuckonwheels wrote: post #96
JoshTriplett wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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/

If you have a pacemaker implanted, do you believe you have the right to modify and update the software that operates it? Separately, do you think it's remotely a good idea?

Not that person, but yes. You have entirely missed the ability to simply view and understand what's inside your own body.

Where your interpretation means someone else needs to follow your whim for their own problem, despite the legalese stating otherwise.

I think that is an absurd position and I am sorry to feel the need to have to be blunt about it.

Post reply on HN