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

231–240 of 268 posts

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

#231

Post by abigail95 »

f1shy wrote: post #198
abigail95 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

No the license does not hold! Fair use exists independently of the GPL license.

Using GPL software does not take away your rights under the law. As much as the angry FSF lawyers want you to believe - I can use any GPL software in any way I choose and have the affirmative defense of fair use for every single claim they throw at me.

Whether I lose or not depends on specific factors of my use - and I'm sorry but one comma isn't going to cut it.

Edit: A single comma will lose 100% of the time to a summary judgement via de minimis. That's just an incredible legal theory you have there and not something you should be spreading.

Edit2: The Beastie Boys famously won via de minimis at summary judgement for a 3 note sample. It matters not whether those 3 notes were GPL notes or not. It matters what the law is.

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

#232

Post by abigail95 »

austhrow743 wrote: post #123
cj wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren’t we talking about enforcing/exercising a legal right? Whether you have a reason to make a claim is much different than whether you have a legal basis for your claim.

We're talking about Lost-Entrepreneur439 on Reddit emailing a company to ask for some of their code. You can just do that. No GPL, open source, enforcement, demands, etc language needed. Just "I'm trying to do X, can I see the code for Y?". I receive and send them at work pretty frequently. They've mentioned the GPL as a way to try to increase the chances of getting sent the code. A support person for a medical devic…

And now we get to my question of why. They want the Linux source code, the company is not giving it to them, why is the next step a blog post instead of a lawsuit? Again this is a medical device - it's important enough to spend the money on.

They make a blog post about GPL violations which allege the company is violating the law.

I'm absolutely begging for anyone in a similar situation to prove it. The reasons those emails were sent is because they think they have a legal entitlement to be sent the source code. *PROVE IT*. It's cheap!

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

#233

Post by abigail95 »

bitmasher9 wrote: post #113
abigail95 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$405 https://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/attorney-inf...

I’ve personally never seen a lawsuit cost less than a few grand in legal fees even for small time bully defense.

This will probably dox me but I'm going to win a federal discrimination case against a university, with nothing but GPT5.x and Claude, and some filing fees. I'm no dummy but I'm not a genius. I barely got through the Advent of Code 2025 problems with a mess of spaghetti.

In my country people have a common law right to enforce the law themselves without having to pay legal fees. In America it's a statutory right I believe.

The risks of getting a costs order against me are higher than 0% but if I lose narrowly I won't be paying anything.

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

#234

Post by abigail95 »

apublicfrog wrote: post #76
abigail95 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

For reference for non Americans/non legal people: > The Copyright Claims Board (CCB) is available to resolve copyright disputes of a relatively low economic value and provides an efficient, less expensive alternative to federal court. https://ccb.gov/

Thank you, I should have provided that myself and been more courteous in my response.

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

#235

Post by abigail95 »

voidpointer wrote: post #193

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 t…

I'm sorry you didn't get a response yet. I'm not a lawyer and have no legal training but it seems to boil down to this:

It's part of the debate of whether (1) GPL is a contract, (2) GPL can be enforced by non-parties, (3) How Fair Use applies, (4) Methods to bully/shame companies to give up source code ...? (5) Who the actual parties involved are if the actual rights holder (Linux Kernel) tries to sue someone. (First Sale doctrine might apply).

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

#236

Post by RHSeeger »

RichardLake wrote: post #187
RHSeeger wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In other words, assume you are the second owner in all cases when it comes to certified medical equipment. By that logic, _any_ company can effectively ignore the GPL constraints by just selling it to a reseller, first; one that they have a contract with to _not_ offer the source code when they re-sell it. It is my understanding that, if I use GPL in my code, and I distribute it to someone that then re-distributes…

Would you disagree with this logic? You distribute GPL code to me on a dvd. I give that dvd to someone else. I have not made a copy of the source code, so copyright does not come into this. If instead I copied the dvd and emailed the iso to someone else I would be distributing and copyright comes into it.

The GPL binds _everyone_ who distributes GPL-covered work, including resellers. It doesn't matter if you made a copy of it, you are distributing it.

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

#237

Post by fsflover »

bitmasher9 wrote: post #112
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,…

> 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.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46398414

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

#238

Post by esoterae »

What a remarkable stalking horse to try and kneecap right-to-repair by arguing "Please, think of the chil^H^H^H^Hhackers!"

You wouldn't download a CAR, would you? You wouldn't hack your own INSULIN pump, would you?

Face it: If it's GPL and vulnerable to interference, responsibility is squarely on the manufacturer and the fastest death-free way to prove it. If it's GPL and modified by the owner, fuck off.

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

#239

Post by kakoni »

Group_B wrote: post #226
duban wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m aware of a few people working on REing the Omnipod 5. The furthest issue that I have seen is that when a PDM/Omnipod 5 app signs into your insulet id, it gets a private key from the API which is stored in the keychain (and uses SSL pinning to prevent MiTM retrieval of the private key). When pairing with the pod they exchange public keys and then a derived key from the devices private key+pods public keys, but hav…

Anyway to follow the progress? I attended the Nightscout conference and asked around regarding this but no one really knew of any group to follow. Or really knew of the latest developments on this effort.

Was going to ask the something. And also, so the omnipod app is not using android attestation but stores private key it got from omnipod server?

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

#240

Post by TylerE »

jacquesm wrote: post #215
amrocha wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 experie…

Now look at something like the Bede BD-5 and see how many of it's amatuer builders IT killed. Death rate on the first flight alone was something like 10%.

PS: AIrcraft aren't assembled in cleanrooms.

Frankly, you don't have a damn clue on and are getting basically everything wrong in the process

Post reply on HN