Re: Call for vote: public statement about the EU Legislation "Cyber Resilience Act and Product Liability Directive"
On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 at 17:47, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
<perezmeyer@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 at 14:35, Ilulu <ilulu@gmx.net> wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> > (10a) For example, a fully decentralised development model, where no
> > single commercial entity exercises control over what is accepted into
> > the project’s code base, should be taken as an indication that the
> > product has been developed in a non-commercial setting. On the other
> > hand, where free and open source software is developed by a single
> > organisation or an asymmetric community, where a single organisation is
> > generating revenues from related use in business relationships, this
> > should be considered to be a commercial activity. Similarly, where the
> > main contributors to free and open-source projects are developers
> > employed by commercial entities and when such developers or the employer
> > can exercise control as to which modifications are accepted in the code
> > base, the project should generally be considered to be of a commercial
> > nature.
>
> So basically this means Qt will be considered a commercial product
> _even_ if it's totally open source (at least in the way we ship it in
> Debian). Even more, it can even be argued that if we ship it _and_ I
> get to patch it (we do), then I might be responsible for it, which to
> me makes no sense at all.
Yes - if it's "made available on the market", which is in the first
bit that was snipped. Pushing a repository on Gitlab is not "making
available on the market". Selling QT as a supported toolkit to third
parties that then integrate it in their products or services or use it
internally, is. If you do the former, nothing changes for you. If you
do the latter, then you are affected - and that's a _good_ thing!
Reply to: