News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Is an open-source pacemaker safer than closed-source? by ctdonath on Friday May 11, 2012 @11:58AM (#3959860)
An under-discussed point is change control on life-support software.

No doctor will want to be associated with installation of a life-support device which the patient can reprogram at will. Every change, starting from creation of the first blank main.c file, MUST be documented as considered, deliberated, implemented, reviewed, tested, verified, validated, and documented by certified personnel to the satisfaction of everyone from patient to surgeon to maintenance doctor to board of directors to sovereign jurisdictional government. We're not talking "oops, reboot" or "get the backup" or "revert to the previous version" failures should a mistake be made, we're talking "patient will die in 30 seconds flat if you screw up".

Writing a FOSS version of the software keeping me alive right now sounds lofty, but I don't think the surgeon who installed my pacer would have done so if he thought I might actually replace the software outright, and the doc & techs who maintain it certainly wouldn't continue to.

The potential positive benefits of an open-sourced pacemaker are obvious and well-expressed. Oft missed are the litigative & metabolic nightmare scenarios. One dangling pointer and I'm dead.

Re:Is an open-source pacemaker safer than closed-source? by cullen on Friday May 11, 2012 @12:28PM (#3959998)
An open-source life-support device need not necessarily be reprogrammable by the consumer.
Re:Is an open-source pacemaker safer than closed-source? by ctdonath on Friday May 11, 2012 @02:18PM (#3960546)
RMS: The only way I could justify this is if I began developing a free replacement for that very program. It is ok to use a nonfree program for the purpose of developing its free replacement.

Developing a free replacement software for a pacemaker is kinda pointless without the ability for the consumer to reprogram it.

Re:Is an open-source pacemaker safer than closed-source? by TazeTSchnitzel on Friday May 11, 2012 @02:19PM (#3960551)
Whilst Richard Stallman and his GPLv3 would like it to be so, you're correct that this isn't the point. It's not supposed to be reprogrammable by the consumer, but the consumer should be able to know what code is running on it.