Gregory's ServerI'm convinced it needs to be open source in the first place. Because any software deployed on devices placed in human bodies or otherwise used in ways that affect human health needs to be reviewed by as many experts as possible.
|
2 comments
 I'm saying it should be open source – and reviewable by third parties – as of the time it is first used in human trials. We need to start treating software that affects human health and lives the same way we treat drugs and medical devices. Software involved in any high risk situation should be: 1. Open source and reviewable 2. Certified by either the government or an NGO funded by insurance companies (think 'UL' certification) We do these things with drugs and hardware now. |
@jackwilliambell That is not the FDA-Way, but you are correct in the way that implanted devices need to be open sourced latest when they reach EOL or the manufacturer ceased to exist, at least to give patients a chance to get support from a third party.@mhoye