3 ms·

They all ought to band together and block EU countries from downloading their software until the regulation is changed. Let's see what happens.

by racked 3y ago

NegativeK 3y ago
What will you tell open source developers who live in the EU?
- grobmeier 3y ago
  Not sure what he would tell me, but I would go on vacation for some time.
  - rad_gruchalski 3y ago
    Time to start planning because the draft has been accepted.
- orclev 3y ago
  Don't need to actually block EU downloads, just state that no open source software is certified for commercial usage in the EU. Any company that ignores that is now in violation of this law and that's their problem. The EU will need to decide if they want to allow their businesses to continue benefiting from open source software or fix this law. The interesting question is really what happens when commercial software companies outside the EU that use open source libraries decide they don't want to deal with this headache _also_ start refusing to certify their software for use in the EU and stop doing business there.
  - Dah00n 3y ago
    That's not possible with GPL etc. code. Especially since most repos are not even in the US and you can't change the license.
    - orclev 3y ago
      Why not? Nothing in the GPL says you need to certify your code for commercial usage in the EU. Edit: In fact, reading the GPL it looks like it might implicitly already preclude usage in the EU under this law. There's this section right here: 11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION. 12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. That seems to suggest that any cost associated with certifying for commercial usage in the EU would fall on the company using the GPL licensed code, not the developers of the licensed code. Certifying the code for commercial usage under the EU law I would argue would be a warranty, one explicitly declaimed already by the GPL.
      - deafpolygon 3y ago
        The CRA is designed to fix that "problematic" passage in the GPL, and push responsibility back onto the company creating open source software. I don't think this will impact any hobbyist open source developer - it is primarily going to impact commercial 'opencore' companies. I wouldn't be surprised if this targets companies like Red Hat / IBM, etc. Or benefits them. I'm not sure yet. Microsoft is probably laughing all the way to the bank, and this will just solidify their hold on the European market.
Dah00n 3y ago
Using open source as a political weapon is much worse than this. Banning patches from Russian developers have already been seen. It is not the spirit most open source software developers would want to go, I'm sure. At least I would never lift a finger to patch anything that took part in something like you mentioned or as insane as sanctioning russian developers (or some other country/race/gender/etc.) It is a slippery slope and in no time it would spread to banning Chinese patches and developers, with people getting riled up by people from .gov mails and next up Muslims and on and on. Besides, show me one of those "all" you mentioned that has the right to do so. Do you think open source is American? It could just as well be they all ban the US. Just... don't.
- racked 3y ago
  Disclaimer: I'm from the EU myself. Like a lot of commenters are saying, these blog posts are nice, but they won't change the minds of the legislators. The legislators, in their apparent naivety, are living in a dream world where they expect today's volunteer developers to take on real and unfair legal risk for their contributions. That's why I think open-source projects ought to make a real statement and ban EU downloads of their software. This will catch the legislators' attention. Making the lives of whoever is using the software (practically everyone) difficult will get the point across and force change. This has nothing to do with discriminating against who _contributes_ to the software, which is of course a bullshit thing to do.

They all ought to band together and block EU countries from downloading their software until the regulation is changed. Let's see what happens.

by racked 3y ago

They all ought to band together and block EU countries from downloading their software until the regulation is changed. Let's see what happens.

NegativeK 3y ago

What will you tell open source developers who live in the EU?

grobmeier 3y ago
Not sure what he would tell me, but I would go on vacation for some time.
- rad_gruchalski 3y ago
  Time to start planning because the draft has been accepted.
orclev 3y ago
Don't need to actually block EU downloads, just state that no open source software is certified for commercial usage in the EU. Any company that ignores that is now in violation of this law and that's their problem. The EU will need to decide if they want to allow their businesses to continue benefiting from open source software or fix this law. The interesting question is really what happens when commercial software companies outside the EU that use open source libraries decide they don't want to deal with this headache _also_ start refusing to certify their software for use in the EU and stop doing business there.
- Dah00n 3y ago
  That's not possible with GPL etc. code. Especially since most repos are not even in the US and you can't change the license.
  - orclev 3y ago
    Why not? Nothing in the GPL says you need to certify your code for commercial usage in the EU. Edit: In fact, reading the GPL it looks like it might implicitly already preclude usage in the EU under this law. There's this section right here: 11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION. 12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. That seems to suggest that any cost associated with certifying for commercial usage in the EU would fall on the company using the GPL licensed code, not the developers of the licensed code. Certifying the code for commercial usage under the EU law I would argue would be a warranty, one explicitly declaimed already by the GPL.
    - deafpolygon 3y ago
      The CRA is designed to fix that "problematic" passage in the GPL, and push responsibility back onto the company creating open source software. I don't think this will impact any hobbyist open source developer - it is primarily going to impact commercial 'opencore' companies. I wouldn't be surprised if this targets companies like Red Hat / IBM, etc. Or benefits them. I'm not sure yet. Microsoft is probably laughing all the way to the bank, and this will just solidify their hold on the European market.

Dah00n 3y ago

Using open source as a political weapon is much worse than this. Banning patches from Russian developers have already been seen. It is not the spirit most open source software developers would want to go, I'm sure. At least I would never lift a finger to patch anything that took part in something like you mentioned or as insane as sanctioning russian developers (or some other country/race/gender/etc.) It is a slippery slope and in no time it would spread to banning Chinese patches and developers, with people getting riled up by people from .gov mails and next up Muslims and on and on. Besides, show me one of those "all" you mentioned that has the right to do so. Do you think open source is American? It could just as well be they all ban the US. Just... don't.

racked 3y ago
Disclaimer: I'm from the EU myself. Like a lot of commenters are saying, these blog posts are nice, but they won't change the minds of the legislators. The legislators, in their apparent naivety, are living in a dream world where they expect today's volunteer developers to take on real and unfair legal risk for their contributions. That's why I think open-source projects ought to make a real statement and ban EU downloads of their software. This will catch the legislators' attention. Making the lives of whoever is using the software (practically everyone) difficult will get the point across and force change. This has nothing to do with discriminating against who _contributes_ to the software, which is of course a bullshit thing to do.