zlacker

[return to "Debian Statement on the Cyber Resilience Act"]
1. teeray+Vz[view] [source] 2023-12-28 02:17:10
>>diyftw+(OP)
Obviously it wouldn’t work for a project as large as Debian, but I wonder if there is some exclusion clause that can be inserted that forbids all users that would be covered under the Cyber Resilience Act from using the software?
◧◩
2. kube-s+yA[view] [source] 2023-12-28 02:23:50
>>teeray+Vz
It could be done for some software, but some popular licenses like GPL don't allow additional restrictions on use.
◧◩◪
3. quacks+PA[view] [source] 2023-12-28 02:27:02
>>kube-s+yA
If it were a big enough problem, could GPLv4 be published (perhaps with a clause to cover this and future laws) and products encouraged to migrate to it?
◧◩◪◨
4. Ekaros+9B[view] [source] 2023-12-28 02:31:39
>>quacks+PA
Likely not. A license can not override legislation. Like creative-commons cannot be used to give away moral rights at least if not some of the copy rights too.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. patrak+jC1[view] [source] 2023-12-28 13:25:19
>>Ekaros+9B
But we are not talking about overriding legislation. The question is, can GPL4 say "you cannot use or distribute this software" if there is a legal risk to the creator?
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. kube-s+XT1[view] [source] 2023-12-28 15:27:39
>>patrak+jC1
A license could say that, however, the creator would still have legal risk in the case that someone broke the license. "My customer broke the license terms" is not a defense to breaking a law.
[go to top]