[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [open-regulatory-compliance] Kicking off the CRA Attestations project
|
On 28 Oct 2025, at 14:44, Elizabeth Mattijsen via open-regulatory-compliance <open-regulatory-compliance@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 28 Oct 2025, at 14:02, Alistair Woodman <awoodman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:/
...
>> WRT the CRA, the details of process are still TBD, but my assumption is that the actual Attestation is *not* a contract, but that could be used as part of a contract or process or supply-chain verification thingy to.
>
> Still, guaranteeing support for X years, feels like a contract to me.
>
> I guess this also boils down to the question whether or not attestations are generic, or unique for each manufacturer.
I think we need to separate this; an attestation is a declaration about something at a point in time - i.e. an engineers statement/affidavit that can be relied on & that may be forward projecting (e.g. this wooden floor is fit for an X Kg load for the next X years after which the wood will have lost its strength) -- whereas support is indeed an agreement to deliver something in the future.
I would keep the two very separate; also as the downstream support is optional; the open source steward definition 3.(14) limits it to:
the purpose or objective of systematically providing support on a sustained basis *for the development* of specific products with digital elements
With the emphasis on 'for the development' -- not the downstream support thing as part of its 12 `'AND'ed toegether requirement to be an open source steward.
So a downstream support thing is IMHO a very separate thing from art. 25 - and because you can only be a steward when ``other than a manufacturer'' - you cannot get a downstream support requirement through that route either.
With kind regards,
Dw
