• 0 Posts
  • 4 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle


  • zero_iq@lemm.eetoTechnology@beehaw.org*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    Ah, OK. So it seems it’s a case of the spirit of the text not matching the precise technical wording used. IMO, the legislation clearly intends to exclude freely-distributable open-source software, but the issue lies with what constitutes a commercial activity. (I’ve not yet checked the rest of the document to see if it clearly defines “commercial activity” in relation to the legislation.)

    TBH, it seems that what is needed here is a clarification and tightening up of definitions, not wholesale rejection of the legislation.


  • zero_iq@lemm.eetoTechnology@beehaw.org*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Why is everyone up in arms about this?

    The legislation specifically excludes open source software. Has nobody in this discussion actually read the proposed legislation?

    From the current proposal legislation text:

    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.

    There is also a clause that states those using open source software in commercial products must report any vulnerabilities found to the maintainer.