undefined | Better HN

0 pointskevin_thibedeau3mo ago0 comments

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.

0 comments

abigail952mo 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.

schmuckonwheels3mo 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".

mr_toad3mo 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.

RHSeeger3mo 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.

RichardLake2mo 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.

2 more replies

kevin_thibedeauOP3mo 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.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse