On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 23:23, Ville Voutilainen <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Correct. Necessary for specific purpose seems to be what article 5 > requires, and then you get explicit consent for that > specific purpose, and GDPR's articles 5 and 6 are covered (of course > the rest of article 5's requirements need to be covered). > You're not necessarily going to like that specific purpose (or the > outcome of all this, including the consent query), > but GDPR requirements don't seem too difficult to fulfil, and there's > nothing particular in the new offering that would > instantly and obviously go even close to violating GDPR, based on my > layman reading of it. I don't think GDPR > will change the course of the offering, so if you want to change that > course, I think you need a different avenue > of argumentation. > Well it depends on how you interpret the GDPR, a strict interpretation is that since The Qt Company does not technically needs email addresses to distribute binary packages, requiring users' email addresses does violates the GDPR. A loose interpretation is that The Qt Company does require the email addresses for its business model and it is enough to be GDPR compliant. I guess we will not know which is the correct one until there is a trial with a ruling of the CJEU. Until then I do not see the GDPR changi any company business model and offering.
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
