4 ms·

If compliance costs and liability were shuffled onto developers working for free, I'm pretty sure you'd see a sudden drop in EU OSS development.

by ISL 4y ago

Xylakant 4y ago
Developers working for free are explicitly exempt. The article lays out that the carve-out has issues and those should get resolved, but fundamentally it‘s there.
- paganel 4y ago
  What happens with EU-based developers that work on OSS projects while on a company’s dime? I.e. said company doesn’t have any direct relation with that project, but wants to support it by paying some of its developers to put in the work. Or to developers that receive Patreon money based on their OSS projects? It can get pretty murky pretty fast.
  - Xylakant 4y ago
    Then they‘re no longer working for free. That‘s exactly the issues this article is discussing - but that‘s not the point the parent poster was alluding to. They specifically mentioned „for free.“ However, if you build security critical software and get paid to do so it‘s not entirely unreasonable to require some sort of certification. You can‘t just build medical devices for money either without some sort of regulation. Or produce food for money. Or repair cars for money.
    - ISL 4y ago
      OSS contributions aren't ever explicitly security-critical software: "THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ...... " It is on the user (or a third party certification authority) to accept any liability for the quality of the software.
      - throwaway294566 4y ago
        That law would override any such disclaimer by the seller (or other kind of "commercial producer") of OSS software. What is "critical" is determined by the catalogue of critical software categories.
        UncleEntity 4y ago
        Which would move up the chain to all dependencies of a critical project. Libc, clang/gcc, whatever. Needs to be audited. Perhaps they require the “integrator” to perform the audit or maybe the fact someone provides software which can be useful in critical environments is enough to signal an implied warranty and they are on the hook for compliance. Nobody knows until it all goes through costly legal procedures where everyone is trying to cover their asses and pass the buck. I’m waiting for the day where FLOSS devs are greeted at EU airports by process servers because they released some software while in college and it got used in some critical software.
        throwaway294566 4y ago
        No, the draft requires the purpose of a software to be declared. So if you declare Linux to be a terminal emulator, not an operating system, and only sell/import/distribute it as such, you only need to comply with the somewhat easier self-certification requirements for non-critical software. However, that declaration of purpose of course binds all other users/distributors of Linux, if they should dare to use or bundle it as a desktop, server or mobile operating system, they are doing so outside the original certification and need to have the required audit for critical software performed. That, as far as I read it, also means that something like GCC, which is unambiguously a compiler, isn't critical and need not be audited, only self-certified, even if used to compile a critical software component.
      - retrac 4y ago
        You cannot waive such rights in many jurisdictions, and such clauses are void there. Even where you can generally waive such warranty rights as a buyer in a contract, such waivers may still be curtailed in allowed scope. That includes most US states, too. E.g. if you sell a consumer product that's shoddily made and unfit for purpose and it blows up and injures its user, a signed contract where the buyer fully waives all implied warranties for fitness of purpose and accepts full responsibility -- caveat emptor! -- is probably void, and you are probably on the hook anyway. > Limitation of consequential damages for injury to the person in the case of consumer goods is prima facie unconscionable https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-719 https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-719
  - pmontra 4y ago
    Example: I contributed to the Elixir version of faker years ago. My customer allowed me to issue a PR with the Italian translations and it was accepted. This is clearly commercial because my customer was paying me and I was working at a commercial service. With this legislation I think they wouldn't let me send the PR (because maybe they would have had to pay for the certification) and/or it wouldn't be accepted (because the costs could be on the project.)
- BeefWellington 4y ago
  What happens if say, an employee of Amazon, Google, or Netflix, contributes changes to my OSS app?
- Archelaos 4y ago
  > Developers working for free are explicitly exempt. The problem lies, among other things, in the fact that a business activity might be assumed even if one does not explicitly receive money for the software directly, but indirectly. For example via donations, ads on the download Web-site, using it for self-promotion, paid consultancy, selling tutorials, ...
  - mqus 4y ago
    "[inside] the course of a commercial activity" "Commercial activity is understood as providing goods in a business related context." secondary self-promotion, donations and ads are imho not "providing goods in a business-related context". Paid consultancy and selling tutorials might be though, But I assume that judges will rule on that if it comes to it and I assume that they will set some monetary boundary to which this still counts as "outside the course of commercial activity".
    - Archelaos 4y ago
      If "business-related" means: "what contributes to earn you money", then they are. The boundary is typically not the amount of money, but whether there is an intention to make a profit over a longer period of time. So if you have a permanent Website of your open-source product to promote some other product or service, or ask for donations or put ads on the site, you intent to make a profit out of your open-source product. (Almost?) every possible answer to the question: "How can I generate revenue with my open source project?" describes a business related context.

If compliance costs and liability were shuffled onto developers working for free, I'm pretty sure you'd see a sudden drop in EU OSS development.

by ISL 4y ago

If compliance costs and liability were shuffled onto developers working for free, I'm pretty sure you'd see a sudden drop in EU OSS development.

Xylakant 4y ago

Developers working for free are explicitly exempt. The article lays out that the carve-out has issues and those should get resolved, but fundamentally it‘s there.

paganel 4y ago
What happens with EU-based developers that work on OSS projects while on a company’s dime? I.e. said company doesn’t have any direct relation with that project, but wants to support it by paying some of its developers to put in the work. Or to developers that receive Patreon money based on their OSS projects? It can get pretty murky pretty fast.
- Xylakant 4y ago
  Then they‘re no longer working for free. That‘s exactly the issues this article is discussing - but that‘s not the point the parent poster was alluding to. They specifically mentioned „for free.“ However, if you build security critical software and get paid to do so it‘s not entirely unreasonable to require some sort of certification. You can‘t just build medical devices for money either without some sort of regulation. Or produce food for money. Or repair cars for money.
  - ISL 4y ago
    OSS contributions aren't ever explicitly security-critical software: "THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ...... " It is on the user (or a third party certification authority) to accept any liability for the quality of the software.
    - throwaway294566 4y ago
      That law would override any such disclaimer by the seller (or other kind of "commercial producer") of OSS software. What is "critical" is determined by the catalogue of critical software categories.
      - UncleEntity 4y ago
        Which would move up the chain to all dependencies of a critical project. Libc, clang/gcc, whatever. Needs to be audited. Perhaps they require the “integrator” to perform the audit or maybe the fact someone provides software which can be useful in critical environments is enough to signal an implied warranty and they are on the hook for compliance. Nobody knows until it all goes through costly legal procedures where everyone is trying to cover their asses and pass the buck. I’m waiting for the day where FLOSS devs are greeted at EU airports by process servers because they released some software while in college and it got used in some critical software.
        throwaway294566 4y ago
        No, the draft requires the purpose of a software to be declared. So if you declare Linux to be a terminal emulator, not an operating system, and only sell/import/distribute it as such, you only need to comply with the somewhat easier self-certification requirements for non-critical software. However, that declaration of purpose of course binds all other users/distributors of Linux, if they should dare to use or bundle it as a desktop, server or mobile operating system, they are doing so outside the original certification and need to have the required audit for critical software performed. That, as far as I read it, also means that something like GCC, which is unambiguously a compiler, isn't critical and need not be audited, only self-certified, even if used to compile a critical software component.
    - retrac 4y ago
      You cannot waive such rights in many jurisdictions, and such clauses are void there. Even where you can generally waive such warranty rights as a buyer in a contract, such waivers may still be curtailed in allowed scope. That includes most US states, too. E.g. if you sell a consumer product that's shoddily made and unfit for purpose and it blows up and injures its user, a signed contract where the buyer fully waives all implied warranties for fitness of purpose and accepts full responsibility -- caveat emptor! -- is probably void, and you are probably on the hook anyway. > Limitation of consequential damages for injury to the person in the case of consumer goods is prima facie unconscionable https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-719 https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-719
- pmontra 4y ago
  Example: I contributed to the Elixir version of faker years ago. My customer allowed me to issue a PR with the Italian translations and it was accepted. This is clearly commercial because my customer was paying me and I was working at a commercial service. With this legislation I think they wouldn't let me send the PR (because maybe they would have had to pay for the certification) and/or it wouldn't be accepted (because the costs could be on the project.)
BeefWellington 4y ago
What happens if say, an employee of Amazon, Google, or Netflix, contributes changes to my OSS app?
Archelaos 4y ago
> Developers working for free are explicitly exempt. The problem lies, among other things, in the fact that a business activity might be assumed even if one does not explicitly receive money for the software directly, but indirectly. For example via donations, ads on the download Web-site, using it for self-promotion, paid consultancy, selling tutorials, ...
- mqus 4y ago
  "[inside] the course of a commercial activity" "Commercial activity is understood as providing goods in a business related context." secondary self-promotion, donations and ads are imho not "providing goods in a business-related context". Paid consultancy and selling tutorials might be though, But I assume that judges will rule on that if it comes to it and I assume that they will set some monetary boundary to which this still counts as "outside the course of commercial activity".
  - Archelaos 4y ago
    If "business-related" means: "what contributes to earn you money", then they are. The boundary is typically not the amount of money, but whether there is an intention to make a profit over a longer period of time. So if you have a permanent Website of your open-source product to promote some other product or service, or ask for donations or put ads on the site, you intent to make a profit out of your open-source product. (Almost?) every possible answer to the question: "How can I generate revenue with my open source project?" describes a business related context.