6 ms·

From the draft: > In order not to hamper innovation or research, free and open-source software developed or supplied outside the course of a commercial activit

by 2000UltraDeluxe 4y ago

From the draft: > 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. 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. In the context of software, a commercial activity might be characterized not only by charging a price for a product, but also by harging a price for technical support services, by providing a software platform through which the manufacturer monetises other services, or by the use of personal data for reasons other than exclusively for improving the security, compatibility or interoperability of the software

Kon-Peki 4y ago
> charging a price for technical support services, by providing a software platform through which the manufacturer monetises other services, or by the use of personal data See, this is why all these "foundations" and package managers are against it. They count as commercial entities. The EU is a really big place, it won't be ignored. The real danger, from the point of view of these "foundations", is that someone will fill the void with a compliant solution - and they won't limit their services to the EU.
arp242 4y ago
> In the context of software, a commercial activity might be characterized be characterized not only by … "Might" and "not only" are key here. Commercial and non-commercial are not easily separable in neat little boxes, and there's quite a lot of grey area. There's some amount of money involved in a lot of Open Source software, even when it's not really a "business" like, say a bakery or Twitter is. Is accepting money in GitHub sponsors to work on $project_x "commercial activity"? It's not clear to me from that description it's not. As it stands, it's quite vague, partly because it's just so hard to nail down.
pabs3 4y ago
It sounds like individual FOSS freelancers would not be included in the exception, due to the commercial aspect of their activity and some might not be able to afford to continue contributing to FOSS in that way. So it would probably drive people towards joining companies or large consultancies.

Kon-Peki 4y ago

> charging a price for technical support services, by providing a software platform through which the manufacturer monetises other services, or by the use of personal data See, this is why all these "foundations" and package managers are against it. They count as commercial entities. The EU is a really big place, it won't be ignored. The real danger, from the point of view of these "foundations", is that someone will fill the void with a compliant solution - and they won't limit their services to the EU.

arp242 4y ago

> In the context of software, a commercial activity might be characterized be characterized not only by … "Might" and "not only" are key here. Commercial and non-commercial are not easily separable in neat little boxes, and there's quite a lot of grey area. There's some amount of money involved in a lot of Open Source software, even when it's not really a "business" like, say a bakery or Twitter is. Is accepting money in GitHub sponsors to work on $project_x "commercial activity"? It's not clear to me from that description it's not. As it stands, it's quite vague, partly because it's just so hard to nail down.

pabs3 4y ago

It sounds like individual FOSS freelancers would not be included in the exception, due to the commercial aspect of their activity and some might not be able to afford to continue contributing to FOSS in that way. So it would probably drive people towards joining companies or large consultancies.