3 ms·
You're saying this so definitively even though you can't know that what you're saying is true, based on the article: > In order not to hamper innovation or res
by Sakos 4y ago
You're saying this so definitively even though you can't know that what you're saying is true, based on the article:
> In order not to hamper innovation or research, free and open-source software developed or supplied outside the course of a commercial activity should not be covered by this Regulation. [..]
> Commercial activity is understood as providing goods in a business related context. Non-profit organisations may be considered as carrying out commercial activities if they operate in such a context. This can only be appreciated on a case by case basis taking into account the regularity of the supplies, the characteristics of the product, the intentions of the supplier, etc. In principle, occasional supplies by charities or hobbyists should not be considered as taking place in a business related context.
> Open-source software is provided both within and outside of business related contexts. And the 'occasional supplies' exception in this quote seems to be of limited use to projects society comes to depend on. Would you consider an open-source operating system (MINIX) that has been freely available for 35 years an 'occasional supply'? What does its integration in all Intel processors since 2015 mean for being 'goods' outside a 'business related context'? How about the BIND project, a staple of open-source core Internet infrastructure shipping for 40 years?
This feels like a huge issue to me and that's before considering how most OSS we use everyday is worked on by full-time employees as a part of their jobs.
- ohgodplsno 4y agoIf you release TerminatorOS which is an experimental OS for AIs hellbent on destroying the world, you are fine. If someone uses TerminatorOS and you did not sell it to them, they will be responsible for its use, you are fine. If you start terminator.io, a startup that sells TerminatorOS powered drones that shoot you in the face, you are not fine and need to comply. In the same way, if BIND starts BIND.io to sell Bind-as-a-Service, then they'll have to be compliant. If BIND is found to be ran at 90% by AWS with AWS paid employees, they won't need to be compliant. Otherwise, you'll be fine. Source: this is not the US, European law takes context into account.
- michaelt 4y agoWhat if I've already released TerminatorOS for free and would prefer not to leave my users in the EU high and dry, but I also don't want to start a business or spend my free time dealing with legalese while getting nothing in return?
- ohgodplsno 4y agoIf you are not selling it to your EU users, you are fine. If you are selling it to EU users, leave them high and dry and offer no support. They can still clone it and run it on their own. It's really the same thing as selling non certified products in Europe. If you are a registered EU business, you have to sell CE certified products, so we know that you're not going to burn my house down. If i buy from alibaba an LED strip that draws 500W and ends up burning my house down, it'll be my fault, the seller was in China and i knew what i was getting into.
- rad_gruchalski 4y agoIt's pretty clear from the part you quoted yourself. > open-source software developed or supplied outside the course of a commercial activity should not be covered by this Regulation. You take an upstream, free, non-commercial product and you SUPPLY it as part of the solution. You are responsible for the conformity.