zlacker

[return to "Debian Statement on the Cyber Resilience Act"]
1. gunapo+Mm[view] [source] 2023-12-28 00:05:04
>>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.
◧◩
2. LadyCa+En[view] [source] 2023-12-28 00:14:14
>>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.
◧◩◪
3. friend+8o[view] [source] 2023-12-28 00:18:23
>>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".

◧◩◪◨
4. pbhjpb+Gt[view] [source] 2023-12-28 01:13:45
>>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.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. friend+lR[view] [source] 2023-12-28 05:19:24
>>pbhjpb+Gt
This is very analogous to Wickard v Filbern [1] which basically says that intrastate commerce is interstate commerce if that commerce affects interstate commerce. It is very much absurd on it's face and a thinly veiled power grab by the federal government. It's like saying my breathing affects the air quality and so I must be cognizant of others when I breathe.

I don't find the idea useful to anyone but the unscrupulous. I find it very easy to draw the line. If I design something and publish it and people find it useful and put it to use that's clearly not commerce, that's just creativity.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

[go to top]