A lot of straw-grasping. The whole thing "commercial activity" thing, for example. The legal guide says: > on a case by case basis taking into account the regu

A lot of straw-grasping. The whole thing "commercial activity" thing, for example. The legal guide says: > 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. And apparently the author decided to ignore everything but "regularity of the supplies" and decided that a widely used product that makes regular releases is commercial activity. Sorry, but I'm absolutely not convinced. "Characteristics of the product" and "intentions of the supplier" is already very broad and you could easily argue that a non-commercial open-source project is, well, not classified as open-source according to the regulation. The author also truncated the paragraph about open source from the regulation. Here it is in its entirety: > 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 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 for reasons other than exclusively for improving the security, compatibility or interoperability of the software. It is absolutely clear that the EU has thought about open-source software and is intent on not harming the ecosystem with its regulation. But it is stating the obvious: if you write free, open-source software, but you charge for support, then yes, you're engaging in a commercial activity! You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You want to take money from EU consumers? Abide by the EU rules and ensure that the products you distribute comply with the regulations. You don't want to deal with that? Don't take the money. It's as simple as that. Every single link to a reaction from a foundation or developer in this newsletter is in that vein: complaining that they want to continue taking money for support or a platform but avoid falling under the "commercial" category. That just doesn't work. Sorry for the rant but I'm genuinely upset. The EU wants to protect me, an EU customer, from vendors who sell software or software support contract but don't take cybersecurity seriously. They've recognized that OSS is special and even went as far as making special exceptions for it - but without allowing loopholes where vendors hide behind open-source to avoid liability. And yet, what do we get? EU bashing. Because apparently the only good regulation is no regulation. I don't want to live in a libertarian hellhole. If you do, don't force it upon me, and abide by the local law if you want to do business with me.