4 ms·

Thank you for providing the whole quote. If indeed all software that is not directly supplied in exchange for a price is excluded, that would be a huge relief f

by oytis 4y ago

Thank you for providing the whole quote. If indeed all software that is not directly supplied in exchange for a price is excluded, that would be a huge relief for the community. The fear is that they will proceed with extended definition of "commercial activity" though, out of fear of loopholes.

nonethewiser 4y ago
In what sense is that "the whole quote?" Here is an excerpt from the article that puts into context why this is concerning. But honestly, just read the article. > Now, what is a commercial activity? The CRA does not define this term. However, conversations with people more knowledgeable on product legislation pointed me to the EU Blue guide to the implementation of EU product rules: > 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.
- oytis 4y ago
  I mean this part > This is in particular the case for software, including its source code and modified versions, that is openly shared and freely accessible, usable, modifiable and redistributable. However where software is supplied in exchange for a price... This says that publicly available open-source software that is not supplied in exchange of a price (as in, say, customised versions of software that are not available to general public) is exempt. It doesn't cite any other commercial activity (technical support, donations etc.) from EU Blue guide.
  - UncleEntity 4y ago
    I seem to recall that the heartbeat bug was in a library where the author received (very little) monetary compensation for their work. Who’s responsible for compliance in that case, the dev or the thousands of companies who used the library in a critical role? I know this is supposed to fix such a situation but they aren’t going to be taking hundreds of thousands of website operators to court who used the freely provided library without auditing the code.

by oytis 4y ago

nonethewiser 4y ago

In what sense is that "the whole quote?" Here is an excerpt from the article that puts into context why this is concerning. But honestly, just read the article. > Now, what is a commercial activity? The CRA does not define this term. However, conversations with people more knowledgeable on product legislation pointed me to the EU Blue guide to the implementation of EU product rules: > 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.

oytis 4y ago
I mean this part > This is in particular the case for software, including its source code and modified versions, that is openly shared and freely accessible, usable, modifiable and redistributable. However where software is supplied in exchange for a price... This says that publicly available open-source software that is not supplied in exchange of a price (as in, say, customised versions of software that are not available to general public) is exempt. It doesn't cite any other commercial activity (technical support, donations etc.) from EU Blue guide.
- UncleEntity 4y ago
  I seem to recall that the heartbeat bug was in a library where the author received (very little) monetary compensation for their work. Who’s responsible for compliance in that case, the dev or the thousands of companies who used the library in a critical role? I know this is supposed to fix such a situation but they aren’t going to be taking hundreds of thousands of website operators to court who used the freely provided library without auditing the code.