* Framework by the PD that should have been. But in their argumentation they still use both.
More interesting are perhaps their legal arguments, but I assume you are more interested in the results. If not can try to arrange for a private copy.
summary:
* the exception of the PD in Art 2 - 2 is always applicable when direct or indirect business activity takes place. => PD not applicable
* „reverse exception“ when foss as part of direct business activity such as supplied for payment (in any form), personal data or as "embedded software“ => applicable
* „reverse exception“ in case of an indirect business activity, if: sponsoring campaign, supply of foss for services paid for by public funds, or development with the intent to supply services for the manufacturers own software. => applicable
* in case technical support or software maintenance are provided for third party foss they differentiate:
* if such services lead to substantial changes based on the guidelines pertaining to the CRA, this leads to the supplier being „manufacturer“ under the CRA => reverse exception applies, PD applicabel
* if there is no „substantial change“, the supplier doesn’t qualify as manufacturer, thus no business activity in the sense of the PD and the exception applies. => PD not applicable
Maybe this is nothing new, but found it interesting in any case. For people really deep in the topic and interested in their precise arguments, I don’t think I can easily summarize those.
Best,
Florian
--
Dr. Florian Idelberger
Karlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT)
Zentrum für Angewandte Rechtswissenschaft (ZAR)
Institut für Informations- und Wirtschaftsrecht
Vincenz-Prießnitz-Str. 3, D-76131 Karlsruhe
E-Mail:
florian.idelberger@xxxxxxx
KIT - Universität des Landes Baden-Württemberg und
nationales Forschungszentrum in der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft
Yeah, I am not interested in paying 30 EUR for this. Can you clean-room cite describe it for us?
Although not entirely analogous, this article from a German law journal might also be applicable.
I know it will likely be behind an annoying paywall for many, so do let me know if you want to more details.
--
Dr. Florian Idelberger
Karlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT)
Zentrum für Angewandte Rechtswissenschaft (ZAR)
Institut für Informations- und Wirtschaftsrecht
Vincenz-Prießnitz-Str. 3, D-76131 Karlsruhe
E-Mail:
florian.idelberger@xxxxxxx
KIT - Universität des Landes Baden-Württemberg und
nationales Forschungszentrum in der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft
A helpful reference for the white paper could be the 7 year old Open Source Archetypes report from Mozilla:
Georg Link, PhD
(he/him)
TZ: US Central Time: US/Chicago
This is good, I have been thinking about how to explain this in Malta.
Cheers,
Daniel
Hi folks,
The idea of creating a white paper to describe the different types of open source projects was floated on Slack and discussed in our SIG calls.
Here's the proposed abstract for it:
The open source ecosystem is a rich ecosystem composed of very different types of projects and of communities, organizations, and maintainers supporting them. This diversity of project and community types isn't well documented and is rarely considered by policymakers.
As a result, the whole open source ecosystem is often lumped together as a whole, or separated into arbitrary groups that don't match reality. The purpose of this white paper is threefold:
- Identify important traits of open source projects that help differentiate and categorize projects into meaningful groups.
- Define a set of categories based on those traits.
- Provide examples of open source projects for each category and demonstrate where they fit and why.
Please review, comment, and approve the
related pull request and let me know if you want to be involved in authoring this white paper.
Thanks,
--tobie
---
Tobie Langel
Tech Lead ORC WG, Eclipse Foundation
Principal, UnlockOpen
_______________________________________________
open-regulatory-compliance mailing list
open-regulatory-compliance@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://accounts.eclipse.org
_______________________________________________
open-regulatory-compliance mailing list
open-regulatory-compliance@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://accounts.eclipse.org
_______________________________________________
open-regulatory-compliance mailing list
open-regulatory-compliance@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://accounts.eclipse.org
open-regulatory-compliance mailing list
open-regulatory-compliance@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://accounts.eclipse.org
