Re: Call for vote: public statement about the EU Legislation "Cyber Resilience Act and Product Liability Directive"
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 at 09:54, Aigars Mahinovs <aigarius@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 at 13:29, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer <perezmeyer@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 at 07:55, Aigars Mahinovs <aigarius@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [snip]
>> > Even regardless of the specific legal wording in the legislation itself, the point 10
>> > of the preamble would be enough to to fix any "bug" in the legislation in
>> > post-processing via courts. As in - if any interpretation of the wording of the
>> > directive is indeed found to be hampering open source development,
>> > then it is clearly in error and contrary to the stated intent of the legislation.
>>
>> According to the current wording if, for some reason, I am held to be
>> responsible for $whatever, then I should go to court. Me, who lives in
>> south america (because yes, they are looking for culprits no matter
>> where they live). They already won.
>>
>> So, why not try and get the wording correctly from starters?
>
>
> IANAL, but to me the wording seems correct. As long as you are not explicitly conducting commercial activity in
> direct relation to this product to a customer in the EU, none of this applies to you.
>
> If you *are* engaged in commercial activity with customers in the EU, then the EU wants to protect its people and
> also keep up the general hygiene of the computing environment in the EU to a certain level.
That's where I see things differently. With the current wording
someone could say: Debian receives donations and thus is a commercial
entity (look at the text!) Then if Qt comes from a commercial entity
and Debian is a commercial entity then anyone using Qt trough Debian
is doing a commercial activity.
Call me nuts, but that's the way I read it, at least for the moment.
--
Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
https://perezmeyer.com.ar/
Reply to: