Live data from Hacker News

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

old.reddit.com

211–220 of 268 posts

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

#211
post #192
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.

I don't know how easy it is in Germany compared to the U S., but this is false. In the U.S., you absolute can sue (and it is extremely common) to force certain actions. See: constructive trust, mandatory injunction, prohibitive injunction, specific performance, recission, writ.

In all likelihood, you would not receive the source code in the U.S., though. If deadset against release, the outcome would likely be that the offender would be fined and injoined from any further distribution.

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

#212
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it ridiculous? If the license says you have the right to obtain the source code to software that was distributed to you, then you have the right to obtain the source code. It doesn't matter what your intended use of it is.

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…

You already created an interesting top-level comment analyzing the difference between "offering" and "providing" which has a lot of discussion. I'm just saying it's not "ridiculous" to expect software licensing terms to be applied and enforced, whatever a judge decides those terms end up meaning.

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

#213
post #209
post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It doesn't scale as well if I only have a single copy and don't make more. I daresay it won't be commercially viable.

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

#214
post #213
post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It doesn't scale as well if I only have a single copy and don't make more. I daresay it won't be commercially viable.

Second hand book stores and libraries the world over have made it work

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

#215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the Beechcraft Bonanza deserves special mention here. I'm sure all the people that worked on it were experts too!

The big problem with this analogy is that it conflates three very important things:

- GA is more dangerous, period. Doesn't matter whether you build the plane yourself or if you bought it ready made (hopefully new, hopefully very well maintained if second hand)

- GA craft tend to have less experienced pilots than airliners, but even airliner pilots tend to do worse as GA pilots than when they're at work. The reason for that is simple: the processes are what keeps commercial aviation (mostly) safe.

- GA craft tend to kill the pilots, because they are more often than not the only person on the plane.

- GA craft have malfunctions like larger aircraft, there is nothing special about them in that sense. But there is something that they don't have that larger aircraft do have: redundancy. In electronics systems, in the design of the mechanical bits, and finally in the people.

- GA craft that are designed and built by their operators are experimental class for a reason: they are untested and so more likely to fail than the ones that are certified. The design processes for commercial aircraft are nothing compared to the design processes employed by what we'll call hobbyists to distinguish them.

- And finally, even though it is a fun analogy I only meant it from a skin-in-the-game point of view, a GA hobbyist is still going to do his level best to make sure that he's not going to get killed. Boeing executives only care about the bottom line, safety is a distant second. And based on my experience with the difference between the guts of various bits and pieces of avionics and the software that they run on compared to my experience looking at medical devices, their guts and the software that they run on I would be more than happy to bet that the loop hackers know as much more more about the failure modes of these devices as the manufacturers do.

Cleanroom manufacturing under sterile conditions is the main differentiator here, and that just applies to the hardware, and it is an art that the medical industry understands very well. Electronics is already at a lower level of competence and their software knowledge tends to be terrible, not to mention the QA processes on said software.

Programmers working for corporations don't necessarily suddenly grow an extra quality brain when they do their work.

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

#216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 titani…

None of these have anything to do with your average diabetic loop hacker. You are comparing people that live for the thrills with people that are just trying to live.

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

#217
post #214
post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't scale as well if I only have a single copy and don't make more. I daresay it won't be commercially viable.

Second hand book stores and libraries the world over have made it work

They typically buy more than one book.

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

#218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 titani…

None of these have anything to do with your average diabetic loop hacker. You are comparing people that live for the thrills with people that are just trying to live.

They're also people who had a lot of confidence in their own skills (including thinking they knew better than others) and ended up being wrong.

I would say that can have a lot to do with your average diabetic loop hacker.

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

#219

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.

Those people on the boeing flights would have appreciated a little more of the correct motivations.

Instead they got McDonnell Douglas'd

As it turns out the motivations matter way more than you might think.

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

#220
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that also what it costs when you lose and the court makes you pay their lawyer time?

Use the CCB then? Edit: I'm somewhat mad that there's all these tools out there to solve the screeching about GPL violations and nobody seems to want to use them.

>nobody seems to want to use them.

Basically everybody who knows enough to try, knows what the outcomes will tend to be.

Post reply on HN