| ▲ | teddyh 6 hours ago |
| > 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 user does not receive the source code, the user can sue the company for not honoring its promises, i.e. the offer of source code. This is not a GPL violation; it is a straight contract violation; the contract in this case being the explicit offer of source code, and not the GPL. Note that all this is completely off the rails if the user does not receive a written offer of source code in the first place. In this case, the user has no right to source code, since the user did not receive an offer for source code. However, the copyright holders can immediately sue the company for violating the GPL, since the company did not send a written offer of source code to the user. It does not matter if the company does or does not send the source code to the user; the fact that the company did not send a written offer to the user in the first place is by itself a GPL violation. (IANAL) |
|
| ▲ | JoshTriplett 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| This is an open legal question, which the Conservancy v Vizio case will hopefully change; in that case, Conservancy is arguing that consumers have the right to enforce the GPL in order to receive source code. |
| |
| ▲ | schmuckonwheels 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | jacquesm 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | bitmasher9 an hour ago | parent [-] | | > 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. | | |
| ▲ | jacquesm an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I know people die that way (GA). But someone is working for the companies that make insulin pumps and they are not as a rule equally motivated so I would expect them to do worse, not better. And to the best of my knowledge none of the closed-loop people have died as a result of their work and they are very good at peer reviewing each others work to make sure it stays that way. And I'd trust my life to open source in such a setting long before I'd do it to closed source. At least I'd have a chance to see what the quality of the code is, which in the embedded space ranges from 'wow' all the way to 'no way they did that'. | |
| ▲ | horsawlarway an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | dullcrisp 24 minutes ago | parent [-] | | So flying in a plane you built yourself is in fact safer than flying commercial because the motivations line up, got it. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | ryandrake 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | teddyh 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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 lack of a written offer is in itself a clear violation. | | |
| ▲ | schmuckonwheels 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > But then, the company has already, unquestionably, violated the GPL, and the company can be sued immediately. You were right up to this point. Medical devices requiring a prescription must be obtained via specialized suppliers, like a pharmacy for hardware. These appliances are not sold directly to end users because they can be dangerous if misused. This includes even CPAP machines. In theory, that written offer only needs to go to the device suppliers. Who almost universally have no interest in source code. When the device is transferred or resold to you, it need not be accompanied by the offer of source. If that was true, anyone reselling an Android phone could open themselves up to legal liability. Imagine your average eBayer forgetting to include an Open Source Software Notice along with some fingerprint-encrusted phone. | | |
| ▲ | teddyh 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > If that was true, anyone reselling an Android phone could open themselves up to legal liability. That’s only an appeal to ridicule. If those are valid, here’s an opposing one: If this is not true, then any company can violate the GPL all it likes just by funneling all its products through a second company, like a reseller. | | |
| ▲ | gpm 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Here's an appeal to the law, the doctrine of copyright exhaustion (also known as the first sale doctrine) dictates that copyright is exhausted upon the first sale of the device (i.e. to the distributor) and they have no rights to control or prevent further sales. That the GPL potentially fails to achieve what it intends to is neither a legal argument, nor particularly surprising. | | |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse an hour ago | parent [-] | | Wouldn't that imply that end-user license agreements are all unenforceable because the software was sold through a retailer, and even if it wasn't you could just a get a secondhand copy? | | |
| ▲ | gpm an hour ago | parent [-] | | By my understanding EULAs are based on contract law and having a clickwrap agreement that requires you agree to it before using the software, not copyright law. Except perhaps to the extent that copyright law would prevent you from creating a derivative work that doesn't require you to agree to that clickwrap agreement prior to using the software. | | |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse an hour ago | parent [-] | | How does that solve it? Alice buys the software, clicks "agree" so that it runs and then sells it to Bob who uses it without ever agreeing. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | JoshTriplett 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > When the device is transferred or resold to you, it need not be accompanied by the offer of source. This is false. The person transferring the device must either pass along the offer they received (GPLv2 clause 3(c), and only if performing non-commercial redistribution), or pass along the source code (GPLv2 clause 3(a)). | | |
| ▲ | gpm an hour ago | parent [-] | | By my understanding under US law first sale doctrine means that 3 (both (a) and (c)) doesn't apply, copyright has been exhausted and the intermediate party here doesn't need a license at all to sell the device on. Even if you want to argue the GPL is a contract and not just a license the intermediate owner has never been required to become a party to it. Even if for some reason they agreed to the contract - and somehow it was a binding contract despite the complete lack of consideration - it seems unlikely that the courts would interpret 3 to apply because reselling a device isn't "distributing" within the meaning of copyright law because of first sale doctrine. |
| |
| ▲ | Y_Y 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | My Android phone does come with an explicit written offer of source. It's in Settings>About>Legal. |
|
| |
| ▲ | schmuckonwheels 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | kevin_thibedeau 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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 definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable."
The GPL here doesn't extend beyond the kernel boundary. Userland is isolated unless they have GPL code linked in there as well. If they were careless about the linkage boundaries then that's on them. | | |
| ▲ | schmuckonwheels 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | The recipient of that object code is the medical device supplier, not the end-user. It's subsequently transferred to you after presenting a prescription, without any accompanying offer of source code. In other words, assume you are the second owner in all cases when it comes to certified medical equipment. AFAIK if you find an Android phone in the trash, you are not entitled to source either since you never received the offer of source during a purchase transaction. You know that little slip of paper you toss as soon as you open some new electronics that says "Open Source Software Notice". | | |
| ▲ | RHSeeger 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > 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 it to someone else... the GPL is still binding. I don't see why that wouldn't be the case with hardware using GPL'd software. | |
| ▲ | kevin_thibedeau an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | So when I buy a product with GPL code via Amazon, Amazon is the one with the rights to receive the source? That medical supplier is getting paid via the medical coverage the end user is paying for. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | jonway an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Big disagree, if they distribute the code they’re on the hook for the gpl source, too! That’s about as ridiculous as buying a plane and knowing you’re entitled to the gpl sources used. | |
| ▲ | isodev 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > what is this guy going to do with (presumably) the kernel source? Force the Chinese to contribute back their improvements to the kernel? As the original Reddit comment explains, Insulet is an American company. | |
| ▲ | JoshTriplett 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Linus rants Linus is arguing against a strawman that Conservancy never actually argued. See https://sfconservancy.org/news/2025/dec/24/vizio-msa-irrelev... for details. > Which brings us to the question: what is this guy going to do with (presumably) the kernel source? https://openaps.org/ | | |
| ▲ | schmuckonwheels 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | If you have a pacemaker implanted, do you believe you have the right to modify and update the software that operates it? Separately, do you think it's remotely a good idea? | | |
| ▲ | JoshTriplett 27 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > If you have a pacemaker implanted, do you believe you have the right to modify and update the software that operates it? Yes, of course. It is abhorrent that people have devices implanted into their bodies and are in any way prevented from obtaining every last detail about how those devices operate. > Separately, do you think it's remotely a good idea? In rare circumstances, yes. See, by way of example, Karen Sandler's talk on her implanted pacemaker and its bugs, for specific details on why one might want to do so. | |
| ▲ | iinnPP an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Not that person, but yes. You have entirely missed the ability to simply view and understand what's inside your own body. Where your interpretation means someone else needs to follow your whim for their own problem, despite the legalese stating otherwise. I think that is an absurd position and I am sorry to feel the need to have to be blunt about it. | |
| ▲ | brendyn an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Obviously yes to the first question. How could you possibly not have the right to operating your own heart.
Naturally it would generally not be a good idea. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | singpolyma3 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The argument here is that, if there is an offer, they already do under standard contract law. | |
| ▲ | teddyh 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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”. |
|
|
| ▲ | jstanley 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | dspillett 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | Joker_vD 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > 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) The hell? Over here, the price tags are a sort of public contract, to which the seller pre-commits. The seller forgot to change the tags? That's not the buyer's problem. | |
| ▲ | teddyh 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don’t think so; I can’t recall any support for such a connection between the written offer and the GPL itself written into the GPL license text. | | |
| ▲ | abdullahkhalids 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | From section 4 [1] > If distribution of object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place satisfies the requirement to distribute the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code. Similar clauses in Sec 6. [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html | | |
| ▲ | teddyh 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | That section (and similar in section 6d) is not about the written offer of source code. The written offer of source code is instead covered in section 6c. | | |
| ▲ | abdullahkhalids 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ah.. Thanks > c) Accompany the work with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give the same user the materials specified in Subsection 6a, above, for a charge no more than the cost of performing this distribution. | | |
| ▲ | immibis 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | So according to the legal theory expressed in this thread so far, nobody can sue anybody and there's no obligation to provide source code. The copyright holder couldn't sue because the license was followed (an offer was provided) and the end user couldn't sue because the offer doesn't have to be followed up on. Or, instead of theorycrafting reasons why it shouldn't work, you could "just" sue them and see if the judge agrees. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | ww520 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | teddyh 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | jstanley 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't think you're guilty of anything for failing to honour an offer in most cases. | | |
| ▲ | Retric 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | An offer is legally binding in that when someone acts based on that offer you can be liable for damages. This does not force you to honor the original offer though. | |
| ▲ | kkjjjjw 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Such offer is as legally binding as any tender. Of course a contract dispute could go either way. |
|
| |
| ▲ | 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | woah 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | And what are the damages? | |
| ▲ | kgwxd 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | cxr 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That's not what they're saying. On the shelves are three insulin pumps: one with a 5-year warranty, one at a bargain barrel price that comes with no warranty, and one accompanied by a written offer allowing you to obtain the source code (and, subject to the terms of the GPL, prepare your own derivative works) at no additional charge any time within the next three years. Weighing your options, you go with pump #3. You write to the company asking for the GPL source. They say "nix". They're in breach. | | |
| ▲ | schmuckonwheels 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | The GPLv2 under which Linux is licensed does not prohibit that insulin pump from bricking itself if you tried to install "your own derivative work" that wasn't signed by the manufacturer. This is not only possible but also prudent for a device which can also kill you. | | |
| ▲ | fn-mote 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Possibly true, but irrelevant to the post to which you are replying. The argument is over providing you the source code. |
|
| |
| ▲ | TZubiri 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | So gpl is a licensor-licensee contract, if code and license is not shared to the user, then there is no contract to which the user is a party, rather the user is a beneficiary. The offer of source code seems to be a way to facilitate the conveyance of source code through opt-in means separately from the object code rather than some legal trickery to create a user-licensee contract. While the offer may indeed convey a licensee-user obligation, a compliant distribution would attach a license anyway, converting the user into a licensee and licensor to licensee in a recursive fashion I wonder if lawyers specialize in this, it sounds very cool and not at all standard law, but somehow compatible with contract law IANAL |
|
|
|
| ▲ | kevin_thibedeau 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The written offer with a limited term of three years is just one permitted method of distribution. If an offer was never made then they're not covered by that clause and are bound to comply by other means without the protection of the three year window. |
| |
| ▲ | teddyh 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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.) |
|
|
| ▲ | immibis 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| In America, maybe this is the case. In Germany, it seems an end user can sue them directly for source code. |
|
| ▲ | TZubiri 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > This is not a GPL violation; it is a straight contract violation But GPL is a contract I think the distinction you are pointing would be between a gpl licensor-licensee contract, rather than a licensee-user contract. (IANAL) |
| |
| ▲ | teddyh 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > 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. |
|
