zlacker

>>diyftw+(OP)
It should be obvious to everyone by now that the European Union doesn't actually care about developers or small businesses at all.

>>gunapo+Mm
I don’t know what this act specifically covers, but if I were a small business that sold (unintentionally) poisonous cookies to my neighbors, I ought very well to be shut down. That applies no matter my revenue stream size (or even if it was zero!) So I don’t find your argument particularly compelling. There is no inherent right to do business, if doing that business is harmful in some way. The E.U. rightly recognizes that consumers in general are more protected that businesses. I much rather this than the capitalist hellhole that the US is turning into.

>>LadyCa+En
Pretending for a second that I don't outright reject your premise (that there is no inherent right to do business)...

You can't just label everything as "doing business" and then regulate it all. If I make something interesting and give everyone in the world the blueprints so they can make one themselves that's not "doing business".

>>friend+8o
IIRC in USA trademark legislation "doing business" has been defined by caselaw as encompassing acts which would harm another person's business such as giving things away for free. So, if one gives away LibreProgram and that takes significant market share away from ClosedProgram sellers then I am "doing business".

Much as I ardently support FOSS (and similar: open hardware, say) I also think this idea has some use and deserves substantial consideration.

It is difficult to draw the line here, much more difficult than it seems at first, in my personal opinion.

>>pbhjpb+Gt
I see no considerations for why my giving away stuff for free impacting other people's business means that my ability to freely give ought to be regulated. It is my property. I should be free to freely give of it. If that destroys a business then that kinda sucks, but why does it matter to my ability to engage in consensual non-monetary transactions with my property?