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

121–130 of 268 posts

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

#121

Post by JoshTriplett »

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?

> If you have a pacemaker implanted, do you believe you have the right to modify and update the software that operates it?

Yes, of course. It is abhorrent that people have devices implanted into their bodies and are in any way prevented from obtaining every last detail about how those devices operate.

> Separately, do you think it's remotely a good idea?

In rare circumstances, yes. See, by way of example, Karen Sandler's talk on her implanted pacemaker and its bugs, for specific details on why one might want to do so.

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

#122

Post by dullcrisp »

horsawlarway wrote: post #118
bitmasher9 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's the equivalent of flying a plane you built yourself A great analogy because people die that way. I personally would never push code to another person’s insulin pump (or advertise code as being used for an insulin pump) because I couldn’t live with the guilt if my bug got someone else killed.

And yet someone IS pushing code to these devices. Every single one. So the question really becomes - Are these people working on their own pumps with open source more or less invested than the random programmers hired by a company that pretty clearly can't get details right around licensing, and is operating with a profit motive? More reckless as well? Perhaps. But at least motivated by the correct incentives.

So flying in a plane you built yourself is in fact safer than flying commercial because the motivations line up. Got it.

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

#123

Post by austhrow743 »

cj wrote: post #120
austhrow743 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Poorly explained maybe but it covers not just that there is no basis but that no basis is needed and draws attention to the odd request for a basis where none is needed. Just "there is no basis" as a response would be like saying "yes" or "no" to "have you stopped beating your wife?"

Aren’t we talking about enforcing/exercising a legal right? Whether you have a reason to make a claim is much different than whether you have a legal basis for your claim.

We're talking about Lost-Entrepreneur439 on Reddit emailing a company to ask for some of their code.

You can just do that. No GPL, open source, enforcement, demands, etc language needed. Just "I'm trying to do X, can I see the code for Y?". I receive and send them at work pretty frequently.

They've mentioned the GPL as a way to try to increase the chances of getting sent the code. A support person for a medical device company might not know anything about software licences or linux or GPL. If the company has some sort of "send GPL code to askers" policy and Lost-Entrepreneur439 just asks for the linux kernel, the support person might not know that the GPL policy applies and just say no. If you include it in your message then it increases the chances of them typing "GPL" in to whatever internal knowledge bank they have and seeing "for GPL requests, forward the enquiry to jeff@ourcompany.com" or something like that.

The GPL isn't between Lost-Entrepreneur439 and the company so I don't think "enforcement/exercising a legal right" is an accurate way to describe what we're talking about. That would be if the copyright holders to the linux kernel get involved.

EDIT: Although that seems like largely just a semantics thing. Like if a judge orders a company to pay you some money and you say "give it to austhrow743" is it valid to say that I have a right to that money? Or is it that you have the right that I get that money? If someone wants to phrase "linux kernel copyright holders have a right to demand users of their code share it with anyone who asks" as "anyone who asks has a right to that code" then I don't really have a problem with that.

I just see a big difference between making a request and making a claim. I don't need to think I'm legally entitled to something to ask for it. I don't even need to think that getting it is likely. Whereas Abigail appears to be treating sending and receiving requests by emails as equivalent to a court summons.

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

#124

Post by AnthonyMouse »

dullcrisp wrote: post #122
horsawlarway wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet someone IS pushing code to these devices. Every single one. So the question really becomes - Are these people working on their own pumps with open source more or less invested than the random programmers hired by a company that pretty clearly can't get details right around licensing, and is operating with a profit motive? More reckless as well? Perhaps. But at least motivated by the correct incentives.

So flying in a plane you built yourself is in fact safer than flying commercial because the motivations line up. Got it.

You, an engineer at a major aircraft manufacturer that isn't Boeing, have been working after hours with some of your colleagues on a hobby project to add some modern safety features to an older model of small private plane, because you regard it as unsafe even though it still has a government certification and you got into this field because you want to save lives.

Your "prototype" is a plane from the original manufacturer with no physical modifications but a software patch to use data from sensors the plane already had to prevent the computer from getting confused under high wind conditions in a way that has already caused two fatal crashes.

Now you have to fly somewhere and your options for a plane are the one with the history of fatal crashes or the same one with your modifications, and it's windy today. Which plane are you getting on?

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

#125

Post by mr_toad »

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.

> first sale doctrine) dictates that copyright is exhausted upon the first sale of the device (i.e. to the distributor).

The copyright doesn’t go away when copies are sold to a distributor. Someone (probably the manufacturer) still has legal obligations to the copyright holder.

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

#126

Post by mr_toad »

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…

> In theory, that written offer only needs to go to the device suppliers.

The GPL clearly specifies recipients, it doesn’t say anything about suppliers.

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

#127

Post by mindslight »

dullcrisp wrote: post #122
horsawlarway wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet someone IS pushing code to these devices. Every single one. So the question really becomes - Are these people working on their own pumps with open source more or less invested than the random programmers hired by a company that pretty clearly can't get details right around licensing, and is operating with a profit motive? More reckless as well? Perhaps. But at least motivated by the correct incentives.

So flying in a plane you built yourself is in fact safer than flying commercial because the motivations line up. Got it.

Flying in a plane you built yourself is likely safer than flying in the same model of plane built by a company that assembled it for you using lowest-bid labor while making you sign a twenty page lawyer barf disclaiming liability.

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

#128

Post by mr_toad »

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…

> purchase transaction

The licensee has to offer code to users (more precisely, to any third party). It doesn’t say they have to purchase anything to be a legitimate user.

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

#129

Post by sarusso »

mlsu wrote: post #31
fyhn wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all though, I've been looking at Minimed pump reverse engineering (which would be just reading glucose data, not controlling the pump), and that's not solved yet, at least not for the 780G. But I hope it will be, and perhaps I'll be able to contribute.

I don't work for Medtronic. But it's extremely unlikely that will happen. It's not merely a matter of reverse engineering -- after the original medtronic "hack" / reverse engineer efforts (the ones that lead to the original openAPS system being developed) the FDA put out new guidance on cybersecurity protections for insulin pumps. The communication between your phone/pump or glucose sensor/pump is encrypted now for a…

> The communication between your phone/pump or glucose sensor/pump is encrypted now for all newer devices.

May I ask where did you get this info? And what “newer” means here?

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

#130

Post by sarusso »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #124
dullcrisp wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So flying in a plane you built yourself is in fact safer than flying commercial because the motivations line up. Got it.

You, an engineer at a major aircraft manufacturer that isn't Boeing, have been working after hours with some of your colleagues on a hobby project to add some modern safety features to an older model of small private plane, because you regard it as unsafe even though it still has a government certification and you got into this field because you want to save lives. Your "prototype" is a plane from the original manufa…

This example is so right. Including the parallel with what happened with those two aircrafts.
Post reply on HN