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 kernel source? Force the Chinese to contribute back their improvements to the kernel? Of which there are likely none. Try and run custom software on his medical device which can likely kill him? More than likely.

The judge's comments on the Vizio case are such that should this guy get his hands on the code, he has no right to modify/reinstall it AND expect it will continue to operate as an insulin pump.

This is about as ridiculous as buying a ticket on an airplane and thinking you are entitled to the source code of the Linux in-seat entertainment system.

The argument here is that, if there is an offer, they already do under standard contract law.

If you carefully read what I wrote, you will notice that I never claimed otherwise. Whether or not third parties have standing to sue on a GPL violation is immaterial to my point, none of which is “an open question”.

Yes. I did not cover these cases because approximately nobody does that.

I mean, the absolutely simplest, and cheapest, way for companies to comply with the GPL is to ship the source code together with the software. Stick it in a zip file in a directory somewhere. The company can then forget the whole thing and not worry about anyone contacting them and ranting about source code and the GPL. But no company does that.

The other simple way for companies to comply with the GPL is for companies to provide a link to download the source code at the same place that users download the program itself. If the user did not download the source code when they had the chance, that’s the user’s problem. This will also let the company ignore any GPL worries. No company does this, either.

(The GPL provides a third way for individuals and non-profits, which is not relevant here.)

The written offer is part of the licence, as is the need to respond to that offer with the source code offered. It is all part of the same agreement.

A written offer on its own would not normally be directly enforceable in many (most?) jurisdictions, for the same sort of reason that retailers can't be held to incorrectly published prices (in the UK at least, a displayed price is an “invitation to tender”, not a contract or other promise) except where other laws/regulations (anti bait&switch rules for instance), or the desire to avoid fighting in the court of public opinion, come into effect.

But in this instance, the written offer and the response to that offer are part of the wider licence that has been agreed to.

The customer spends money to buy the product along with the source code offered. It's part of the transaction. Not honoring part of the transaction is a breach of contract.

Maybe it’s not technically “breach of contract”, and an offer might or might not be a contract. But if you don’t honor an offer you made, you must surely be guilty of something. Otherwise, all offers would be meaningless and worth nothing.

And what are the damages?

I think they're just saying the GPL doesn't really cover consumer/distributor (dis)agreements, it only covers copyright. While the spirit of the GPL is user-first, it still has to be realized within the confines of copyright law. Even though many people might conflate the spiritual goal and the legal agreement, it doesn't grant "users" any extraordinary legal powers.

It's not illegal to not honor written offers, it's illegal to distribute copyrighted material in violation of it's license.

> 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.

Richard Stallman is wrong about linking.

But it's the company's legal department which would evaluate that claim. Because it's a legal claim. Licenses aren't magic spells, they're social agreements and non-executive employees don't want to get in trouble for making executive decisions.

That really depends. A company can still own the copyright to the code that they’ve written, even if it’s licensed with GPL. It’s an asset that is transferred if the company is sold, etc, so yes, it’s actually company property.

The GPL grants rights to use and distribute, but does not grant ownership. It’s not suddenly in the public domain.

Support staff or even engineers are not in a position to be making that call. It’s a legal department decision, even if it seems obvious to you.

Derivative works are owned by those who create them. What copyright says you can do with them depends on the specifics, but the general case is true.

Then why are they trying to enforce copyright/contract law without standing?

Making a blog post about someone elses copyright being violated is even more annoying to me.

$405

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

This one. That's what the filing fees are for a lawsuit like this. There's no rule saying you have to pay a lawyer to write a statement of claim.

Edit:

Courts deal with contract law disputes all the time. It's their bread and butter, everyday, nothing special stuff.

Edit2:

To you below, citation needed

So essentially, it's like this?

"we plan on users having a phone to connect to it and use primarily. FDA requires a primary/backup. well it's already phone-controlled, go find a phone that works with it. needs to be cheap, cuz no one will really use it anyway"

That makes a little more sense. I was imagining the development process involving both devices, rather than one device first, then determining what the second would be later.

Thanks for the insight!

Its also for security.. outside the US, you still cant use a regular phone with the omnipod.

I don't work for Medtronic. But it's extremely unlikely that will happen. It's not merely a matter of reverse engineering -- after the original medtronic "hack" / reverse engineer efforts (the ones that lead to the original openAPS system being developed) the FDA put out new guidance on cybersecurity protections for insulin pumps.

The communication between your phone/pump or glucose sensor/pump is encrypted now for all newer devices.

> Diabetic companies like Insulet have been very lax when it’s come to the hacking of their devices

Absolutely not true, not any more.

> Bradley Kühn's

I saw that spelling for the first time last week, I think.

Did he change his name? Has he always been Kühn, but went with Kuhn, because Umlaute are hard for Americans?