On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 at 09:54, Aigars Mahinovs <aigar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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.
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/