On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 at 13:29, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer <
perezme...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 at 07:55, Aigars Mahinovs <aigar...@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.
--
Best regards,
Aigars Mahinovs
