zlacker

>>daniel+(OP)
what's new here? A commercial entity selling a product that also embeds open source components is liable is that entity's product causes harm, even if the fault lies in bugs in the OSS code itself. is that new ? assuming their own license does not also indemnify them. The OSS code, at least if it's mine, has "THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS”, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND" right there in the license. What's the change?

>>zzzeek+Sb
The article says that someone is liable. So if a user directly uses open source would the open source maintainers be liable? Would it be the operating systems company for allowing the software to run? It’s very unclear.

>>pylua+gg
Maybe the article but the EU explicitly says opensource free of charge software is fine.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/de/press-room/20231205IP...

>>bpfrh+Nk
What if its free of charge but I'm rattling a tin can? Is that "thanks for making my life better free of charge, buy yourself a beer" or is it "here's a quarter in exchange for 100% insurance covering anything I use this free thing you made for"?

>>friend+bp
As far as I understood it it would be ok to have a option for donating.

But I have no real basis for that, I would assume that based kickstarter and co also getting money from consumers without having to abide by any consumer rights.

I assume that the option of donating while keeping the software available free of charge would fall under the same category as getting gifts from strangers

Contrary getting displaying ads directly in the app would fall under commercial activity because you force the user of the app to give you money(via an ad provider)