zlacker

>>daniel+(OP)
Honestly just sounds like a misreading of the law to me. I don't believe it. One part says

"If open source resources are in/called/touched your code, you’re responsible for their performance too. The open source resource licensed away their liability to you."

This is the norm. The private company holds responsibility for vetting everything they ship.

It's a speculation on how the law will be enforced for a law with no history and I don't see why you would assume the worst interpretation

>>zapthe+S5
Also the EU laws are read here, by people who live in countries where that would be the case, with way too much weight. People from the US putting cookie accept banners and gdpr blah on their sites while they don't have to, because they are not violating in the first place (the intent of the gdpr is very simple; don't do things you don't want to have done to you to others; tracking, collecting info you don't need to run the business etc; if you do more, you have to be able to defend that and ask for permission), but in the US they can expect a cease and desist in 2 seconds while in the EU that's not going to happen. They are going after large abusers or abusers that won't listen after a ton of warnings. Which they should.

>>anonzz+n9
Yea, the “pragmatic” EU approach to legislation: write it in draconian language and let it carry incredible sanctions (like millions of euros), but then just don’t enforce it. Unless you anger some bureaucrat of course.

>>bjorns+Zo
They enforce it, just not against small companies as that is not the intent of these laws. You know, unlike pragmatic US legislation where you can fuck over anyone anytime over nothing valid.