[License-discuss] Reconsidering the "unless required by applicable law" clauses on warranties and limitations of liability (CRA)

JBC offsite jamie at jamie.io
Fri Feb 24 07:28:01 UTC 2023

On the CRA, Mike was gracious enough to note in his first blog post
that, while Eclipse and a few other big shops might be able to
metabolize the overhead of all the
conformity/safety-testing-and-certifying that a regulatory regime
might impose ... most FOSS shops could not.  But as he also notes,
this EU proposal probably comes from a place of good will:  it's not a
deliberate attack on noncommercial / indie code development.  In case
this didn't get mentioned in the thread, there's more of a discussion
of this ongoing legislative issue in Open Forum Europe channels.   
Jamie usually from OASIS but personal views only here.
On 2/23/2023 at 2:39 PM, "Mike Milinkovich"  wrote:                  
On 2023-02-20 1:36 p.m., Brian       Behlendorf wrote:
          On       Sat, 18 Feb 2023, Thorsten Glaser wrote:       
       What is a CRA?         Assuming you don’t means clan
restoration act here…         
       Cyber Resiliency Act, the prompt for this thread:       

	For those who are interested in this topic, I've written a        
second blog post[1] on the unintended consequences of the       Cyber
Resilience Act. 
	I have also recently come to realize that the CRA needs to      
understood as a companion piece to the revised       Product        
Liability Directive[2][3]. AIUI the CRA is the legislation       that
makes the open source community _responsible _for the       CE Mark
validation for all of its software, and it is the PLD that       makes
the open source community _liable _for any defects. 
	I cannot stress enough how damaging these soon-to-be laws are to     
 the future viability of open source as we know it. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20230223/94afbab9/attachment.html>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list