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

201–210 of 268 posts

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

#201

Post by Dilettante_ »

f1shy wrote: post #180

It shocks me how much comments, here in HACKER news, are something like: "Why do you want the source code?! leave it alone! Don't touch it, is unsafe! Big Pharma companies know much better than you what they do!" REALLY?! REALLY?! I'm not saying, go changing the SW like crazy. Is clear it can kill you. But this "anybody who is not a mega pharma company is absolutely unable to do anything right, you will absolutely ki…

"Agency is dangerous, please take away my(and by extension, everyone's) agency to hurt myself!" is a sentiment that's somehow gained a lot of traction everywhere. The People yearn for the accountability sink.

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

#202

Post by rkomorn »

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.

A lot of the other responses say something along the lines of "of course people have more incentive not to mess up, they care about their own lives more than corporations care about getting sued" and sure, that's true in general, but:

- people try to wingsuit through narrow obstacles and miss

- people try to build their own planes and helicopters and die

- people try to build submersible vehicles to go see the titanic and, uh, don't have a 100% success rate

- people try to build steam-powered rockets and die

"It's their life, they won't fuck it up" doesn't exactly cover a lot of behaviors.

I'd argue home-rolling your own medical device firmware is closer to daredevil/"hold my beer" behavior than normal.

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

#203

Post by immibis »

teddyh wrote: post #192
immibis wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To repeat: Maybe that's how it works in America. In Germany, it seems you can sue for anything you're entitled to, not just money.

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

#204

Post by Y_Y »

gpm wrote: post #153
conartist6 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So too is the GPL a contract, or at least nobody has proven that it is not a contract and the SFC will fight to prove that it is

Sure, maybe anyways but let's assume it is, the parties to that contract are the manufacturer and the copyright holder. The contract allows the manufacturer to distribute it to the distributor without requiring the distributor to agree to the terms and itself become a party. The distributor can then sell the device with the software on it on without acquiring a license and becoming a party to the contract because the…

Like when I buy a second hand book and then I start printing copies of the book and selling them without any agreement with the original author or publisher?

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

#205

Post by dspillett »

sznio wrote: post #183
ivell wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since money has not exchanged hands, you could always decide not to buy at the counter. So atleast in the countries I have been, it is not legally binding.

it's still bait-and-switch

Only if deliberate. If the incorrect price is corrected as soon as the problem is noticed then that is (legally) fine. If the incorrect price is left displayed, or was put up deliberately to draw people in, then it is bait & switch.

The other solid bait & switch is advertising a product that they don't have any of to sell, in the hope that you'll come in and buy something more expensive (or lower value) instead.

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

#206

Post by amrocha »

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…

I can’t tell if you seriously think a random person writing code in their basement is equivalent to a company that has access to API docs, design specs, actual test hardware, the expertise of a ton of engineers that have worked on the project and understand how it can go wrong, not to mention all the regulations and verifications they’re subject to.

But if you do then wow. That really puts in perspective the kind of people that use hacker news. I’m gonna be more selective about who I bother replying to going forward.

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

#207

Post by amrocha »

habinero wrote: post #169
array_key_first wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 int…

Nope, not snark. You can’t believe that you’re better than everyone else and everyone else is incompetent and still function in society.

If you do then you probably have an undiagnosed mental illness.

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

#208

Post by amrocha »

mindslight wrote: post #144
amrocha wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

My comment rests on the fact that the types of planes you can build yourself are completely different models than the fully assembled models from the likes of Boeing etc. I do agree that a kit 737, if such a thing existed, would be less safe than one off the line.

I would still trust a cessna way more than any plane built or modified by a single person.

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

#209

Post by gpm »

Y_Y wrote: post #204
gpm wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, maybe anyways but let's assume it is, the parties to that contract are the manufacturer and the copyright holder. The contract allows the manufacturer to distribute it to the distributor without requiring the distributor to agree to the terms and itself become a party. The distributor can then sell the device with the software on it on without acquiring a license and becoming a party to the contract because the…

Like when I buy a second hand book and then I start printing copies of the book and selling them without any agreement with the original author or publisher?

Like when you buy or sell a second hand book without getting permission from the copyright holder to distribute their copyrighted material, which would otherwise be necessary.

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

#210

Post by AdelaideSimone »

f1shy wrote: post #177
habinero wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Why do you think a random person, who is VERY passionate about something, as to invest all the free hours in life to do something, is less skilled that one who just does it because is needed to survive? Sorry. I would be much more inclined to have something made by somebody passionate about it, as done by some guy that received hopefully some kind of instruction on how to do things and was then left alone. In this co…

And why do you think pathos arguments are logical? Granted, they didn't cite them, but assuming it is true, empirical studies showing the accident rates are the logical point from which to draw conclusions. What you would like, how you and others feel about it, and what you would expect are meaningless.

You're also equivocating. They made it extremely clear they are referring to hobbyist and other such groups with vague or unknown qualifications; whereas, you go in and make stipulated claims about small businesses with certified mechanics, etc. These two are clearly not the same category, making your argument non-responsive. It's also contradictory in terms of discussed liabilities and such, as the small company, and its mechanics, that whoever worked with, would have liability as well, as opposed to the "random git repo".

Post reply on HN