On 15/11/23 at 14:13 +0000, Luca Boccassi wrote: > On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 at 13:53, Lucas Nussbaum <lu...@debian.org> wrote: > > > > On 15/11/23 at 11:38 +0000, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > > On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 at 06:23, Lucas Nussbaum <lu...@debian.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 15/11/23 at 00:49 +0000, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > > > > What do you think? Here's what I came up with: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > FWIW, I would likely second something along those lines. Some comments: > > > > > > > > > The Debian project however notes that not enough emphasis has been > > > > > employed in all parts of these regulations to clearly exonerate > > > > > Free > > > > > and Open Source Software Projects from being subject to the same > > > > > liabilities as commercial products > > > > > > > > I find this part a bit ambiguous. When GitLab or Proxmox or RedHat sells > > > > services around a free software product, I think it's OK if they are > > > > covered by this regulation. Maybe it would be better with > > > > s/Projects/Organizations/? > > > > > > > > Maybe we should underline specific borderline situations where the > > > > impact of the regulation would be unclear? > > > > > > I think the two paragraphs are clearer than that already when taken > > > together, especially the last bit which essentially boils down to "let > > > us continue to do what we are doing and go after vendors instead > > > kkthxbye", but what about this rewording: > > > > > > The Debian project however notes that not enough emphasis has been > > > employed in all parts of these regulations to clearly exonerate Free > > > and Open Source Software developers and maintainers from being subject > > > to the same liabilities as commercial vendors, which has caused > > > uncertainty and worry among such stakeholders. > > > > > > Therefore, the Debian project asks the legislators to enhance the > > > text of these regulations to clarify beyond any reasonable doubt that > > > Free and Open Source Software developers and contributors are not going > > > to be treated as commercial vendors in the exercise of their duties when > > > merely developing and publishing Free and Open Source Software, with > > > special emphasis on clarifying grey areas, such as donations, > > > contributions from commercial companies and developing Free and Open > > > Source Software that may be later commercialised by a > > > commercial vendor. It is fundamental for the interests of the > > > European Union itself that Free and Open Source Software development > > > can continue to thrive and produce high quality software components, > > > applications and operating systems, and this can only happen if Free > > > and Open Source Software developers and contributors can continue to > > > work on these projects as they have been doing before these new > > > regulations, without being encumbered by legal requirements that are > > > only appropriate for commercial companies and enterprises. > > > > This looks better, thanks! > > > > I wonder if we should have something like "Free software development by > > nonprofit organizations" somewhere. I agree that are many situations > > where development happens outside of the context of an NPO, and where > > this regulation should not apply. But it might be easier for Debian to > > focus on its own context. > > How about: > > ...if Free and Open Source Software developers and contributors can continue > to > work on these projects as they have been doing before these new > regulations, especially but not exclusively in the context of > nonprofit organizations, > without being encumbered by legal requirements that are only appropriate for > commercial companies and enterprises.
Great thanks! Lucas