4 ms·

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, witho

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 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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.
  - fsckboy 10mo ago
    the license travels with the copy, it is what allows the copy. if the license does not travel with the copy, then the copy is unlicensed and is a copyright violation. the license carries restrictions and grants rights. those aspects cannot be violated or the license ceases to exist. you don't know what you are talking about, so stop guessing.
kevin_thibedeau 10mo ago
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.
mr_toad 10mo ago
> purchase transaction The licensee has to offer code to users (more precisely, to any third party). It doesn’t say they have to purchase anything to be a legitimate user.

RHSeeger 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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.
- fsckboy 10mo ago
  the license travels with the copy, it is what allows the copy. if the license does not travel with the copy, then the copy is unlicensed and is a copyright violation. the license carries restrictions and grants rights. those aspects cannot be violated or the license ceases to exist. you don't know what you are talking about, so stop guessing.

kevin_thibedeau 10mo ago

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.

mr_toad 10mo ago

> purchase transaction The licensee has to offer code to users (more precisely, to any third party). It doesn’t say they have to purchase anything to be a legitimate user.