| ▲ | schmuckonwheels 2 hours ago | |
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. | ||