alt Hacker NewsThis 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.
Replies
singpolyma3 • yesterday at 10:33 PM
The argument here is that, if there is an offer, they already do under standard contract law.
teddyh • yesterday at 11:22 PM
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”.
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.