5 ms·

Why is this called a poison pill?

DoughnutHole 3y ago
Definitely just a misuse of the term. "Poison pill" doesn't just mean a terrible provision of legislation - it's possible for legislation to be terrible while conceived entirely in good faith. In this case it's bad legislation due to EU legislators not understanding open source. A "poison pill" provision or amendment is an element deliberately added to turn people who otherwise would have supported the legislation against it. The person proposing the poison pill is acting it in bad faith - they have no expectation of it passing, they might not even support the idea themselves - the only reason it's added is to make the original legislation's supporters drop their support, killing said legislation. I don't think anyone is seriously proposing that the EU is deliberately hamstringing open source in order to kill their own cyber-security act. They've just written a bad piece of legislation.
- danaris 3y ago
  Given how frequently problems like this crop up in legislation these days, it seems like we do need a term for it, though. Maybe something like "food poisoning pill"? Made with good intentions, but without proper understanding or taking proper precautions, so it becomes toxic...
- unity1001 3y ago
  > it's possible for legislation to be terrible while conceived entirely in good faith This is way too fine-tuned to destroy small software segments, open source and private developers included, for the benefit of large companies that will be able to afford the potential fines.
  - DoughnutHole 3y ago
    That has nothing to do with what I mean by good faith - I just mean that the legislation they’ve proposed is the legislation that they want passed. That’s different from a poison pill amendment, where the intention isn’t to actually implement the policy, just to kill the legislation that you’re attaching it to.
    - unity1001 3y ago
      One could be inclined to think that in different circumstances. However large software businesses (especially German) are among the backers of the bloc that governs Germany and controls a significant part of Euparl. So you can easily conclude that they would want it to pass...
popcorncowboy 3y ago
In contracts, a poison pill is typically a clause that makes some kind of action prohibitively expensive, usually "killing" the value of the contract. But that's not what this is, nor is it what the writer means. The use of the term here is unfortunate because it's not a poison pill in this typical legal/contracts sense, but rather the writer's attempt to characterise the clause as a deathblow for OSS devs.
denton-scratch 3y ago
I wondered that. The implication of "poison pill" is that something that looks broadly OK actually contains a detail that renders it very perilous. The canonical example is a company arranging its finances in such a way that a hostile acquisition is too dangerous to risk. This isn't a detail; it's the whole point.

Definitely just a misuse of the term. "Poison pill" doesn't just mean a terrible provision of legislation - it's possible for legislation to be terrible while conceived entirely in good faith. In this case it's bad legislation due to EU legislators not understanding open source. A "poison pill" provision or amendment is an element deliberately added to turn people who otherwise would have supported the legislation against it. The person proposing the poison pill is acting it in bad faith - they have no expectation of it passing, they might not even support the idea themselves - the only reason it's added is to make the original legislation's supporters drop their support, killing said legislation. I don't think anyone is seriously proposing that the EU is deliberately hamstringing open source in order to kill their own cyber-security act. They've just written a bad piece of legislation.

danaris 3y ago
Given how frequently problems like this crop up in legislation these days, it seems like we do need a term for it, though. Maybe something like "food poisoning pill"? Made with good intentions, but without proper understanding or taking proper precautions, so it becomes toxic...
unity1001 3y ago
> it's possible for legislation to be terrible while conceived entirely in good faith This is way too fine-tuned to destroy small software segments, open source and private developers included, for the benefit of large companies that will be able to afford the potential fines.
- DoughnutHole 3y ago
  That has nothing to do with what I mean by good faith - I just mean that the legislation they’ve proposed is the legislation that they want passed. That’s different from a poison pill amendment, where the intention isn’t to actually implement the policy, just to kill the legislation that you’re attaching it to.
  - unity1001 3y ago
    One could be inclined to think that in different circumstances. However large software businesses (especially German) are among the backers of the bloc that governs Germany and controls a significant part of Euparl. So you can easily conclude that they would want it to pass...

popcorncowboy 3y ago

In contracts, a poison pill is typically a clause that makes some kind of action prohibitively expensive, usually "killing" the value of the contract. But that's not what this is, nor is it what the writer means. The use of the term here is unfortunate because it's not a poison pill in this typical legal/contracts sense, but rather the writer's attempt to characterise the clause as a deathblow for OSS devs.

denton-scratch 3y ago

I wondered that. The implication of "poison pill" is that something that looks broadly OK actually contains a detail that renders it very perilous. The canonical example is a company arranging its finances in such a way that a hostile acquisition is too dangerous to risk. This isn't a detail; it's the whole point.