4 ms·

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 obtai

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.

schmuckonwheels 11mo ago
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 11mo ago
  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 11mo 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 11mo ago
      > 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.
      - RichardLake 11mo ago
        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.
        RHSeeger 11mo ago
        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.
        RichardLake 11mo ago
        No it doesn't. It can not bind someone that has not agreed to it. A failure to agree might mean they are infringing on copy-right and is liable for damages, but it is wrong to say it binds everyone that distributes it.
        RHSeeger 11mo ago
        They are distributing it without the right to distribute it. The only thing that allows them to distribute it is agreeing to the license/contract to do it in a specific way. If they don't do that, they don't have the right to distribute it. The person they got it from saying otherwise doesn't change that.
  - abigail95 11mo ago
    You've gone off the rails by narrowly focusing on a passage of a software license without understanding the contract law and copyright law environments that those licenses and transactions exist in. If you file a statement of claim to a court that is just riffing on the theme of "Compiled binaries of GPL code are being distributed" - you won't get anywhere. I implore you to learn how to identify the parties involved, which contracts get formed when and between whom, de minimis, exemptions to copyright, and the non-copyrightable parts of code.
teddyh 11mo ago
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 11mo ago
  > 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 11mo ago
    > 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 11mo ago
      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.

schmuckonwheels 11mo ago

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 11mo ago
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 11mo 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 11mo ago
    > 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.
    - RichardLake 11mo ago
      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.
      - RHSeeger 11mo ago
        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.
        RichardLake 11mo ago
        No it doesn't. It can not bind someone that has not agreed to it. A failure to agree might mean they are infringing on copy-right and is liable for damages, but it is wrong to say it binds everyone that distributes it.
        RHSeeger 11mo ago
        They are distributing it without the right to distribute it. The only thing that allows them to distribute it is agreeing to the license/contract to do it in a specific way. If they don't do that, they don't have the right to distribute it. The person they got it from saying otherwise doesn't change that.
- abigail95 11mo ago
  You've gone off the rails by narrowly focusing on a passage of a software license without understanding the contract law and copyright law environments that those licenses and transactions exist in. If you file a statement of claim to a court that is just riffing on the theme of "Compiled binaries of GPL code are being distributed" - you won't get anywhere. I implore you to learn how to identify the parties involved, which contracts get formed when and between whom, de minimis, exemptions to copyright, and the non-copyrightable parts of code.

teddyh 11mo ago

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 11mo ago
> 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 11mo ago
  > 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 11mo ago
    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.