3 ms·

The mechanism is clear: If you use Open Source software commercially, you are now liable if the software misbehaves. Thus, you have an incentive to make sure th

The mechanism is clear: If you use Open Source software commercially, you are now liable if the software misbehaves. Thus, you have an incentive to make sure the software is correct. For (A)GPL software, you have to publish your contributions. Not a lawyer, but it also seems to me that if you are a small shop, you might decide to pay, e.g. RedHat for taking on the liability. RedHat can pool these resources to make sure their software behaves as advertised.

pabs3 3y ago
(A)GPL don't require publication, just giving code to your users, who may or may not elect to further distribute the code.
hightrix 3y ago
> If you use Open Source software commercially, you are now liable if the software misbehaves. Thus, you have an incentive to make sure the software is correct. As a software developer at a non-tech firm, I can gaurantee this means we will not be able to use any open source software. If we are granted an exception, it will be such that we must maintain a private version of the open source software. This is simply a no-go for many companies of all sizes. The risk associated here is not something many (any?) legal department will be willing to take on.
- Certhas 3y ago
  You just ignored the second part of my message? If your company is not willing to pay someone (another company ) for making sure the open source software used is actually working properly (and for assuming liability if it doesn't), then it can't use open source software. But then, what does open source lose when losing for profit users that are not willing to contribute back?
hcfman 3y ago
With a fifteen million euro penalty if you don’t. Yeah nice. If only we could also make fifteen million euros. That’s clear.
hcfman 3y ago
What is due to some health condition they are incapable of fixing it anymore. Tough! Now the law is discriminating against old people because the risk of health deterioration is higher. Let me guess, tough. Old people shouldn’t be programming anyway and they don’t deserve to earn anything with it.

pabs3 3y ago

(A)GPL don't require publication, just giving code to your users, who may or may not elect to further distribute the code.

hightrix 3y ago

> If you use Open Source software commercially, you are now liable if the software misbehaves. Thus, you have an incentive to make sure the software is correct. As a software developer at a non-tech firm, I can gaurantee this means we will not be able to use any open source software. If we are granted an exception, it will be such that we must maintain a private version of the open source software. This is simply a no-go for many companies of all sizes. The risk associated here is not something many (any?) legal department will be willing to take on.

Certhas 3y ago
You just ignored the second part of my message? If your company is not willing to pay someone (another company ) for making sure the open source software used is actually working properly (and for assuming liability if it doesn't), then it can't use open source software. But then, what does open source lose when losing for profit users that are not willing to contribute back?

hcfman 3y ago

With a fifteen million euro penalty if you don’t. Yeah nice. If only we could also make fifteen million euros. That’s clear.

hcfman 3y ago

What is due to some health condition they are incapable of fixing it anymore. Tough! Now the law is discriminating against old people because the risk of health deterioration is higher. Let me guess, tough. Old people shouldn’t be programming anyway and they don’t deserve to earn anything with it.