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

161–170 of 268 posts

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

#161

Post by indymike »

teddyh wrote: post #90
TZubiri wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> 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

Wrong. The requirement to provide source code under the GPL is primarily governed by Section 3 of the GNU General Public License v2 and Section 1 of the GNU General Public License v3. The whole point of the the GPL is to make it so users of software could get source code to the software.

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

#162

Post by tstrimple »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #141
amrocha wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely not the untested code I wrote myself! Are you kidding me? How many times have you unwillingly introduced bugs into a code base you didn’t fully understand? That’s basically table stakes for software engineering.

> Definitely not the untested code I wrote myself! Nobody said it was untested. > How many times have you unwillingly introduced bugs into a code base you didn’t fully understand? That’s basically table stakes for software engineering. Which applies just the same to the people the company hired to do it, and now we're back to "the people with a stronger incentive to get it right are the people who die if it goes wron…

Tested how? With 100% "unit test" coverage? I can certainly see how a random person on the internet might be highly motivated and actually talented enough to contribute to these sorts of projects. But they don't have the budget and resources that commercial entities have. They don't have the same due diligence requirements. They don't have the same liability. If I use a commercial device unaltered, it's the company's fault if the device fucks up or is defective and causes harm. If I install random internet software on my medical device and it fucks up and causes harm, it's my fault.

I say this as someone who might modify my own medical devices because I'm so fucking jaded over the capitalist march towards enshitification and maximizing profit over human lives. There is simply no way random folks on the internet can test these types of systems to any reliable degree. It requires rigorous testing across hundreds to thousands of test cases. They at best can give you the recipe that works well for them and the few people that have voluntarily tried their version. That doesn't scale and certainly isn't any safer than corporate solutions.

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

#163

Post by Group_B »

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…

No it's true. Companies like Insulet and Dexcom could send out lawsuits to all the open source projects out there that involved REing. Dexcom's glucose share API was REed years ago, and Dexcom hasn't even tried updating or stopping the use of unofficial APIs. All I'm saying is that the companies really don't care at all.

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

#164

Post by billforsternz »

billforsternz wrote: post #142

I recall idly looking through the manual of our Bosch dishwasher when it was delivered and seeing that they offered to share GPL'ed source code from the machine's embedded guts. I thought to myself, "that's kind of interesting, I'll take them up on that". So I emailed the address they provided for this purpose. I got an auto email back saying, effectively, "No. You're not an authorised person, we don't recognise your…

I was troubled by my own comment. How exactly did Bosch handle this? I went back and checked and in fact the rejection email came from their email server, it was an "access denied" type email that I originally misinterpreted as a "you don't have access" type message leaving me annoyed but really I took away and remembered a wrong impression. Looking more carefully, the message doesn't mean anything subtle, it just means the email address (oss-request@bshg.com for the record) doesn't exist. Which is bad, but not nearly as bad as I portrayed it above. Apologies (for the record) to Bosch.

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

#165

Post by piekvorst »

> This honestly disgusts me. GPL violations are already bad on their own, but on a medical device? That me, and thousands of people rely on to stay alive?

Disgusting is not respecting the producers who put together the device that wouldn’t exist otherwise, leaving thousands of people in pain or death.

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

#166

Post by array_key_first »

amrocha wrote: post #139
mindslight wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can’t honestly believe that or you wouldn’t be able to function in society.

You can believe it and simultaneously function in society.

We aren't all building our own planes because it's worse, but because it's time consuming. I don't have 20,000 hours to burn learning about how planes work to make my own.

If we magically beamed the knowledge straight into people's heads and also had a matter fabricator, I'd imagine yes - everyone would build their own plane. And it might be safer, I don't know.

Point is, the ideas are not mutually exclusive. You can believe both and still resolve it internally and with the world

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

#167

Post by array_key_first »

socalgal2 wrote: post #143
jacquesm wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

> 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 I would think it's the opposite. People that hack on this only risk their own life. Companies risk many people's lives and will get sued. Of course the person doing the hacking doesn't want to die but they're also willing to take the risk.

Right, but getting sued is basically the least risky activity ever. Okay, a little dramatic but: you won't go to jail, and if you're rich and become less rich you're still better off than most people. In pure absolutionist terms, being a business owner is basically always less risky than being labor.

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

#168

Post by habinero »

mindslight wrote: post #127
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.

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.

Are you really comparing an amateur skillset to designs from paid engineers made on a company assembly line with QC?

Why on earth would you think an experimental aircraft made by a hobbyist would be safer?

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

#169

Post by habinero »

array_key_first wrote: post #166
amrocha wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can’t honestly believe that or you wouldn’t be able to function in society.

You can believe it and simultaneously function in society. We aren't all building our own planes because it's worse, but because it's time consuming. I don't have 20,000 hours to burn learning about how planes work to make my own. If we magically beamed the knowledge straight into people's heads and also had a matter fabricator, I'd imagine yes - everyone would build their own plane. And it might be safer, I don't kn…

Not the original poster, but that was snark and not meant literally.

Also, building your own plane is absolutely worse, even if you do have expert-level knowledge. That's true for any complex design. Aircraft design, material sourcing, fabrication, assembly and quality control are all very different skill sets, but the real kicker is experience.

The reason why commercial aircraft are so safe is a lot of work goes into investigating and understanding the root causes of accidents, and even more work goes into implementing design fixes and crew training.

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

#170

Post by 8ytecoder »

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.

Distribution agreement is generally different from a sale. Distributors act as agents of the manufacturer. It’s not yet counted as a sale. Most warranties are limited to first owner and do not transfer. How do you think this squares with that? Does it mean I don’t get warranty on the dishwasher I got from Costco? It’s also the same principle of a distributor acting as an agent that enables the manufacturer to have a contract with you.
Post reply on HN