Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754398AbXFSEyE (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 00:54:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751933AbXFSExy (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 00:53:54 -0400 Received: from srv1.netkinetics.net ([206.71.148.180]:38026 "EHLO srv1.netkinetics.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751778AbXFSExx (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 00:53:53 -0400 Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 From: Tim Post Reply-To: tim.post@netkinetics.net To: Daniel Drake Cc: Alexandre Oliva , Bron Gondwana , Ingo Molnar , Alan Cox , Daniel Hazelton , Linus Torvalds , Greg KH , debian developer , david@lang.hm, Tarkan Erimer , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton In-Reply-To: <46774BD3.6010605@gentoo.org> References: <20070614235004.GA14952@elte.hu> <20070615041149.GA6741@brong.net> <20070615072322.GA7594@brong.net> <20070616021630.GA30660@brong.net> <20070616103130.GD32405@brong.net> <20070616233251.GA17270@brong.net> <46774BD3.6010605@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Net Kinetics Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 12:51:19 +0800 Message-Id: <1182228679.21798.1711.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - srv1.netkinetics.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - vger.kernel.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [0 0] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - netkinetics.net X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1605 Lines: 40 On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 23:21 -0400, Daniel Drake wrote: > Let's take a certain class of medical devices into account: ones that > are absolutely definitely for medical treatment, but are not life > threatening if they fail. > > Say, a dental treatment device -- if the device produces a crown or > bridge that doesn't fit properly, the dentist says "nope" and throws it > away. No harm done. I've done quite a bit of research, I'm not nearly done. These regulations (from what I can tell) seemed to follow suit with the National Electric Code (NEC) [latest] when dealing with mandatory isolated ground devices and special cabling methods when it comes into a device touching a patient. If that remains consistent, this won't be so bad. If the patient never comes in contact with it, its not regulated as much and (from what I've seen) has no requirement for tamper proofing. I point out again, I am not _nearly_ done with my research. I think of nothing else, anyone with an interest should closely monitor how these devices are being regulated by the FDA as more of them begin to look like penguins. I won't argue one way or another as to the presence of benevolent intent in those laws-to-come, I'm simply pointing out the questionable technical competency of those who will be writing them and their need for guidance when doing so. Best, --Tim - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/