Re: Call for vote: public statement about the EU Legislation "Cyber Resilience Act and Product Liability Directive"
On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 09:14:05AM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 11/20/23 00:21, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > Second version, taking into account feedback. Looking for seconds at
> > this point:
[...]
>
> Thanks a lot for taking the time to word out things this way.
>
> However, I really think this text is being too nice with the EU. The feeling
> in short is reading:
> - what you did was good
> - what you did was good
> - what you did was good
> - oh, btw, there's room for improvement... it'd be nice if...
>
> That's not at all my feeling about the CRA. I'm once more really unhappy
> about EU,
Same here. But...
> I feel like we're getting trapped by big corp and their lobbying
> power, and we need to use stronger words.
Probably in a different way. I'd rather prefer Debian to defend the DFSG,
including DFSG 6. If the EU were to draw a line for compulsory liability, then
it should not be between commercial and nonprofit, but rather between FOSS and
non-FOSS. For example, in my opinion "awscli" is FOSS, and the usual liability
disclaimer in FOSS licenses should also be valid for "awscli". This is, in my
understanding, a different opinion than discussed so far, right?
>
> In the absence of something better, I'll still vote for the above...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Thomas Goirand (zigo)
>
Reply to: