I have no idea what I’m supposed to see from you link? I don’t see any particular legal knowledge, or description of any particular legal consequences, and I have no idea what the point is???
Obviously software provided for free “as is”, cannot be required to be maintained. And if it is owned by the public which is the case with FOSS, there is no “owner” who can be made responsible.
If however the software is part of a commercial package, the one supplying the package has responsibility for the package supplied, you can’t just supply open source software as part of a commercial product, and waive all responsibility for your product in that regard.
I admit it’s a complex topic, but if you read the post in detail, it should answer your questions. The “owner” is typically the maintainer, if in doubt that’s the person with repository write access. And the EU can apparently potentially require whatever to be maintained, not that I understand the exact details. The point was that the regulation doesn’t seem to avoid FOSS fallout well.
Nope, AFAIK that is not legally applicable, that is very clear with licenses like MIT BSD etc, and for GPL in all versions it’s very explicitly stated in the license.
You can also release as simply public domain, which very obviously means nobody owns as it is owned by everybody.
Generally if you give something away for free, you can’t be claimed to be the owner.
I have no idea where that idea should come from, some typical anti EU alarmists maybe? And I bet there is zero legal precedent for that. And I seriously doubt any lawyer would support your claim.
If however you choose a license where the creator keeps ownership it may be different, but then it’s not FOSS.
As far as I understand the license doesn’t matter at all for EU regulation, other than “non-free” software is treated even worse.
Generally if you give something away for free, you can’t be claimed to be the owner.
The CRA from what I can tell applies to software given away for free, sadly. I’m not a lawyer, though. But you can perhaps see why people don’t trust the EU.
Supply in the course of a commercial activity might be characterised not only by charging a price for a product with digital elements, but also by charging a price for technical support services where this does not serve only the recuperation of actual costs, by an intention to monetise, for instance by providing a software platform through which the manufacturer monetises other services, by requiring as a condition for use the processing of personal data for reasons other than exclusively for improving the security, compatibility or interoperability of the software, or by accepting donations exceeding the costs associated with the design, development and provision of a product with digital elements
TL;DR, just donations can already be a problem, apparently. But IANAL.
but also by charging a price for technical support
Which exactly includes systems like RedHat which I already included, but in no way includes voluntary FOSS work for free.
an intention to monetise
Again it’s very much about the money, and being non free both as in beer and in freedom.
just donations can already be a problem, apparently. But IANAL.
NOPE!!!
Donations are not a charge. A donation is as the word says a donation typically to support a voluntary effort or an organization working for the common good in some way.
A donation does not require anything in return.
Why are you making scaremongering arguments from ignorance?
or by accepting donations exceeding the costs associated with the design,
I’m guessing that’s what you are referring to, this is not relevant to normal donations, but only a use of “donations” to circumvent regulation.
Show me any FOSS project that has donations exceeding costs of development, it’s basically non existent, only the Linux kernel project itself, which is fair enough to be covered, since the Linux kernel is driven by commercial interests today, and “donations” are payment for membership and influence.
The claim originally in this line of debate was that small projects could risk this, and no they can’t, only projects that are in reality commercial are affected. Those are very few, like Red Hat and the Linux kernel itself.
The legislators in EU are not morons, and they actually listen to the FOSS community.
I have no idea what I’m supposed to see from you link? I don’t see any particular legal knowledge, or description of any particular legal consequences, and I have no idea what the point is???
Obviously software provided for free “as is”, cannot be required to be maintained. And if it is owned by the public which is the case with FOSS, there is no “owner” who can be made responsible.
If however the software is part of a commercial package, the one supplying the package has responsibility for the package supplied, you can’t just supply open source software as part of a commercial product, and waive all responsibility for your product in that regard.
I admit it’s a complex topic, but if you read the post in detail, it should answer your questions. The “owner” is typically the maintainer, if in doubt that’s the person with repository write access. And the EU can apparently potentially require whatever to be maintained, not that I understand the exact details. The point was that the regulation doesn’t seem to avoid FOSS fallout well.
Nope, AFAIK that is not legally applicable, that is very clear with licenses like MIT BSD etc, and for GPL in all versions it’s very explicitly stated in the license.
You can also release as simply public domain, which very obviously means nobody owns as it is owned by everybody.
Generally if you give something away for free, you can’t be claimed to be the owner.
I have no idea where that idea should come from, some typical anti EU alarmists maybe? And I bet there is zero legal precedent for that. And I seriously doubt any lawyer would support your claim.
If however you choose a license where the creator keeps ownership it may be different, but then it’s not FOSS.
As far as I understand the license doesn’t matter at all for EU regulation, other than “non-free” software is treated even worse.
The CRA from what I can tell applies to software given away for free, sadly. I’m not a lawyer, though. But you can perhaps see why people don’t trust the EU.
If it’s proprietary it doesn’t, between proprietary and FOSS it absolutely does for the reasons I already stated.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ%3AL_202402847
TL;DR, just donations can already be a problem, apparently. But IANAL.
Which exactly includes systems like RedHat which I already included, but in no way includes voluntary FOSS work for free.
Again it’s very much about the money, and being non free both as in beer and in freedom.
NOPE!!!
Donations are not a charge. A donation is as the word says a donation typically to support a voluntary effort or an organization working for the common good in some way.
A donation does not require anything in return.
Why are you making scaremongering arguments from ignorance?
Did you actually read the quote I gave? I’m honestly confused.
I’m guessing that’s what you are referring to, this is not relevant to normal donations, but only a use of “donations” to circumvent regulation.
Show me any FOSS project that has donations exceeding costs of development, it’s basically non existent, only the Linux kernel project itself, which is fair enough to be covered, since the Linux kernel is driven by commercial interests today, and “donations” are payment for membership and influence.
The claim originally in this line of debate was that small projects could risk this, and no they can’t, only projects that are in reality commercial are affected. Those are very few, like Red Hat and the Linux kernel itself.
The legislators in EU are not morons, and they actually listen to the FOSS community.