Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [open-regulatory-compliance] Flowchart from a natural person's perspective -- straw man

I think the only part here that I struggle with is 
40. Your reading means, for example, that multiple companies contributing to the same open source that they are all capitalizing on would each have to file a declaration of conformity, maintain a CE, etc etc. 

On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 at 23:31, Dirk-Willem van Gulik via open-regulatory-compliance <open-regulatory-compliance@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Here is my attempt at a more flowchart form for natural persons (mostly in reaction to some private questions).

Mainly to see if this teases out other questions/issues.

I’ve been a bit black and white/over the top in below; somewhat intentional to see if this helps us get better boundaries for the vague areas; and if there are things we can simply take as right — and we can focus on the ‘indicators’ for these.

Dw.

10: Do I personally contribute to an open source project ?

        E.g. do I sent in patches or do I post bugfixes to an Open Source project ? Or do I do a pull request ?

        No:     Do I contribute to that open source project as part of job; because my boss wants it ?

                I.e. in the boss his time (also if I am my own boss - where it is part of what I deliver to my customers) ?

                Yes:    Generally - the CRA is not your problem, but your bosses their problem.

                        This flowchart is not for them.

                        goto 20

                No:     goto 20


        Yes:    Do I have a committer license agreement (CLA) with that open source Project and do you contribute under that license ?

                Or do you contribute to a project with an implied contribution agreement that is part of the projects open source license ?

                        Yes:    While it depends on the minutiae; you are almost certainly fine if it is one of the many typical ASF variations of a CLA.

                                goto 20

                        No:     you are probably fine; but would be good to introduce a CLA

                                goto 20

20:     Are you maintaining or operating a public software repositories of open source ?

                        Yes:    You are probably fine

                                goto 30

                        No:     goto 30

30:     Are you developing ppen source software in the course of a commercial activity ?

        i.e. is it placed such that others (downstream) can use it in lasting ways as these downstream parties go about their lives or business ?

                        Yes:    goto 40

                        No:     You are probable fine

                                So you are a pure hobbyist; no one really uses your code; or others if so - and if they do so - it does not result on something lasting that exposes it to other people beyond the person who you directly shared it with.

                                END

40:     Are you monetising the work you do on this open source ?

        For example you XXXX?

                        Yes:    Go read the CRA. This flow chart is not for you.

                                END

                        No:     goto 50

50:     Is there a group of people and/or legal persons that you are part of, where there is the shared objective or purpose  to create, maintain, publish that open source licensed code ?

        A typical indication is that you call yourself a group; have a website; have a SCM you all have access to; may have created a more formal legal vehicle; such as a foundation, society or similar, practice some software/release engineering and that you create some forms of processes and rules.

                        Yes:    > hit the superset or either/or issue of legal/natural person <

                                goto 60

                        No:     You are probable fine - depending a bit on the answer to above super/subset issue

                                END

60:     Is the purpose of that open source such that it is intended; or quite possibly, to be used `downstream’, including by others in a commercial setting ?

        Typical indications of this are things like a SCM, release notes, versions numbers, READMEs, makefiles, including in repositories, systemd scripts to start/stop, an FAQ, A manual, a bug database, non directly involved developers submitting bugs or asking questions, etc.

                        Yes:    goto 70

                        No:     You are probable fine - and you and a few mates are working on something very internal; such as the open source code for a large model transit you are building together

                                END

70      Is there an aspect of a sustained basis & ensuring longer term viability of the product.

        So think proper release engineering, fixing bugs, doing risk-based triage, responsible disclosure, filing CVEs, disclosing unsolved vulnerabilities in the release notes, peer review of the releases, timely releases, etc ?

                        Yes:    You are probably an open source steward.

                                END

                        No:     You probably want to step up your organisational maturity. So that your software is generally `fit for purpose’; and some abandonware does not catch anyone of guard by accident. E.g. much like you would not leave a razorblade where a child could find it.

                                 As the CRA was designed to clam down on exactly this type of situation.

                                END



_______________________________________________
open-regulatory-compliance mailing list
open-regulatory-compliance@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://accounts.eclipse.org

Back to the top