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

131–140 of 268 posts

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

#131

Post by chii »

jacquesm wrote: post #116
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.

I know people die that way (GA). But someone is working for the companies that make insulin pumps and they are not as a rule equally motivated so I would expect them to do worse , not better. And to the best of my knowledge none of the closed-loop people have died as a result of their work and they are very good at peer reviewing each others work to make sure it stays that way. And I'd trust my life to open source in…

> I would expect them to do worse, not better.

which is why lots of systems and processes (sometimes called red tape) exist to try and prevent the undesired outcome, and dont rely on the competency of a single person as the weak link!

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

#132

Post by chii »

mr_toad wrote: post #125
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.

> 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.

copyright doesn't give you the kind of rights that a GPL license does - which is not based on copyright, but on contract law (ala, it's in the name - licenses).

A sale of an object does not transfer those licenses (but those licenses are still valid on the seller - a manufacturer selling widgets will have to obey the GPL clauses. If an end user of this widget wants the source code, they have to go back all the way to the manufacturer, rather than any of the middle-men presumably).

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

#133

Post by cxr »

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…

> The spirit of the GPLv2 was about contributing software improvements back to the community.

It may be the case that when all is settled, the courts determine that the letter of the license means others' obligations are limited to what the judge in the Vizio case wrote. And Linus can speak authoritatively about his intent when he agreed to license kernel under GPL.

But I think that it's pretty clear—including and especially the very wordy Preamble—not to mention the motivating circumstances that led to the establishment of GNU and the FSF, the type of advocacy they engage in that led up to the drafting/publication of the license, and everything since, that the spirit of the GPL is very much in line with exactly the sort of activism the SFC has undertaken against vendors restricting the owners of their devices from using them how they want.

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

#134

Post by mkehrt »

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…

IANAL, but this is my understanding.

What's the consideration in the written offer? Promises aren't enforceable in court. For a contract to be enforceable, it has to be an exchange of something, not a one sided offer.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/consideration

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

#135

Post by m463 »

juped wrote: post #43
teddyh wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Richard Stallman is wrong about linking.

Not the kernel, but LGPL libraries do have relevant carveouts. And if you've ever heard RMS speak, he is extremely particular and does understand the nuances of all this.

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

#136

Post by verall »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #117
gpm wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How does that solve it? Alice buys the software, clicks "agree" so that it runs and then sells it to Bob who uses it without ever agreeing.

Somewhere deep in the legalese Alice agreed she would not do that, i.e. "non transferable license".

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

#137

Post by tzs »

mkehrt wrote: post #134
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…

IANAL, but this is my understanding. What's the consideration in the written offer? Promises aren't enforceable in court. For a contract to be enforceable, it has to be an exchange of something, not a one sided offer. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/consideration

There are substitutes for consideration. Search for "detrimental reliance" and "promissory estoppel" if you want to go down that rabbit hole.

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

#138

Post by amrocha »

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…

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.

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

#139

Post by amrocha »

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.

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

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

#140

Post by AnthonyMouse »

verall wrote: post #136
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does that solve it? Alice buys the software, clicks "agree" so that it runs and then sells it to Bob who uses it without ever agreeing.

Somewhere deep in the legalese Alice agreed she would not do that, i.e. "non transferable license".

Isn't that the part that would violate the first sale doctrine?
Post reply on HN