Open Source communities defended developers and foundations against risks posed by the CRA to Open Source development, and their voices were heard. Workshops being offered at FOSDEM offer a chance for others to participate moving forward.
    • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
      106·
      10 months ago

      This time last year OSI recommended that the CRA:

      …exclude all activities prior to commercial deployment of the software and … clearly ensure that responsibility for CE marks does not rest with any actor who is not a direct commercial beneficiary of deployment.

      That recommendation has been accepted and implemented, and the OSI is very grateful to the various experts who took the time to listen.

      My ELI5 version is: The European government were making a rule where software makers can be punished for not following European standards and need a special mark of compliance. Open source organizations argued that the standards shouldn’t be held against any group until a software is sold, and volunteer/non-profit groups shouldn’t have to follow the standard. The Parliament listened and implemented this change to the draft rule.

        • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
          8·
          10 months ago

          Good question. I don’t know the specifics but, that’s probably where the nuances of “commercial beneficiary of deployment” come into play and beyond the scope of my 5 year-old level explanation. I’d say probably not if it’s optional donations.

  • makeasnek@lemmy.mlEnglish
    121·
    10 months ago

    Engaging with your elected representatives matters. Voting matters. Keep it up (and your other political activity outside of voting/writing, too)!

  • clever_banana@lemmy.today
    31·
    10 months ago

    clearly ensure that responsibility for CE marks does not rest with any actor who is not a direct commercial beneficiary of deployment

    Does that apply to open source hardware? Like, can I make a crane that absolutely kills people due to mechanical errors in the design (unintentional) or a space heater that catches fire or a e-Bike that explodes someone’s nuts off and be ok?

    • makeasnek@lemmy.mlEnglish
      5·
      10 months ago

      If you are making a crane, I find it hard to believe you would give the crane itself away for free, since you have to recoup your costs. So that point you are selling cranes and engaging in commerce, so they have jurisdiction to regulate you.

      If you make and publish designs for a crane, or you speculate on how cranes ought to be built, it’s your right to free speech. Think about it, even an engineering textbook must describe how to design an unsafe bridge to teach you how to build a safe one. It will show you examples of famous collapsed bridges, perhaps with full blueprints and design instructions.

      • clever_banana@lemmy.today
        21·
        10 months ago

        I’m talking about designs. Like full CAD and step-by-step documentation.

        So someone else follows your designs, builds the thing, and dies. The reason tbey died is objectively due to a design flaw, not a mistske in building to spec. Does the EU make you legally liable?

        • Shimitar@feddit.it
          2·
          10 months ago

          EU don’t, but you need to make sure about the country in which you operated the crane as each EU country has its own laws and EU directives are not laws.

          I doubt you can be held responsible in such a case unless you are a civil engineer enabled to publish such designs and you did so by stating that those designs are in fact good to go.

          If I build my own crane and die or, worse, kill somebody operating it I am the only one responsible even if my uncle told me how to do so.