On November 13, 2023 12:29:20 PM UTC, "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?
>
This is precisely my concern. Even if I win (because of some words about
legislative intent or whatever), the moment I have to hire a lawyer to deal
with it, I've already lost. This may not be a problem for Debian, but it's
definitely a potential issue for small upstream projects.
I do free software development because I enjoy it and it makes the world a
better place. There's a real limit to how far I am willing to carry
legal/financial risks to do so.
Scott K
