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

191–200 of 268 posts

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

#191

Post by teddyh »

indymike wrote: post #161
teddyh wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Section 3 of GPL 2 states that the company must either give the source to the user alongside the product (in which case the user has the source already), or the company must give to the user a written offer of source code. Note that if the second option is taken, the company is not obligated by the GPL itself to give the source code to the user. It is then only the written offer which obligates the company to give the source code to the user; only the written offer gives the user the right to the source code. Not the GPL itself.

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

#192

Post by teddyh »

immibis wrote: post #61
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…

In America, maybe this is the case. In Germany, it seems an end user can sue them directly for source code.

Maybe. Who can and cannot sue is irrelevant to my point. But I seriously doubt that anyone can sue for source code. Someone might sue for damages, and the company might offer to settle by offering source code. But IIUC, no company can be sued and forced to give up any source code, unless the company itself chooses to do this instead of paying damages.

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

#193

Post by voidpointer »

Why is this relevant for understanding how the IP works or even tweaking it? Whatever is relevant for that matter will most certainly not be a modification to the Linux kernel that the android system is running. It will not fall under the GPL that the kernel is licensed under. Can someone explain why this dispute is worth having beyond a theoretical legal debate on whether they should hand out the particular source tree from which their kernel was built (if they even built it)?

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

#194

Post by abigail95 »

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…

You've gone off the rails by narrowly focusing on a passage of a software license without understanding the contract law and copyright law environments that those licenses and transactions exist in.

If you file a statement of claim to a court that is just riffing on the theme of "Compiled binaries of GPL code are being distributed" - you won't get anywhere.

I implore you to learn how to identify the parties involved, which contracts get formed when and between whom, de minimis, exemptions to copyright, and the non-copyrightable parts of code.

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

#195

Post by abigail95 »

jstanley wrote: post #11
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…

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.

Offer and acceptance are part of how contracts are formed. There is no contract without there first being an offer.

If you accept someones offer, provided it meets the rest of the criteria for a valid contract - congratulations you now have a contract. If the any party violates it, yes this is a breach of contract.

> A written offer is not the same thing as a contract.

An offer is a precondition and component of a contract

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

#196

Post by abigail95 »

f1shy wrote: post #181
Nextgrid wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> because it's very likely there are no changes to the kernel That is a gratuitous assumption. My experience is, as long as there is the smallest custom hardware, you will have to make some tweaks here and there. > 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 alrea…

> That is a gratuitous assumption. My experience is, as long as there is the smallest custom hardware, you will have to make some tweaks here and there.

How sure are you small tweaks create a derivative work? In your experience.

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

#197

Post by jacquesm »

habinero wrote: post #168
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.

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?

You write that as if you have ample experience with codebases of medical devices and I'm going to take a stab at this and say that you don't. Prove me wrong.

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

#198

Post by f1shy »

abigail95 wrote: post #196
f1shy wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because it's very likely there are no changes to the kernel That is a gratuitous assumption. My experience is, as long as there is the smallest custom hardware, you will have to make some tweaks here and there. > 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 alrea…

> That is a gratuitous assumption. My experience is, as long as there is the smallest custom hardware, you will have to make some tweaks here and there. How sure are you small tweaks create a derivative work? In your experience.

I’m not sure of anything. And that is irrelevant. Even if it is a coma, the license holds.

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

#199

Post by hurfdurf »

jacquesm wrote: post #19

Let me guess. Omnipod. They've had some pretty bad recalls too. Never in a lifetime would I trust my well-being to their p.o.s. hardware / software combo. Apologies that person in this thread that worked there, but I hope you are working for a better company now.

Don't need to guess, the company name is mentioned in the second line of the linked posting.

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

#200

Post by Dilettante_ »

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.

>People that hack on this only risk their own life

Yeah, only their own life, yknow, something not particularly valuable or motivating to conserve for them, as opposed to the companies financials!

Post reply on HN