zlacker

>>daniel+(OP)
I use an open source screen reader, NVDA.

It is completely open, and they produce an installer for people or you can build it yourself from Git.

Can you help me understand now, if there is a bug in NVDA (which is under the GPL) and it causes me trouble, say, it can't read a webpage that I need for some government thing, I could now sue my screen reader, which is actually just a bunch of dudes hacking something together? Is that the new behavior that is enabled by this upcoming law?

Next question, if this is the actual state of things, why would anyone ever make anything open source and allow it to be distributed in the EU now? It sounds like, and please please correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like you could sue the makers of The Gimp, for instance, if a bug caused ... what, your pictures to come out looking wrong?

> Someone, or some entity, will need to accept financial and legal responsibility for what the project does in consumer hands.

Here's a crazy idea, maybe that person should be the consumer?

>>ctoth+Pa
You can't.

Product liability excludes non commercial open source software, see:

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

>>bpfrh+Ig
So basically open source devs can't make living off their work because some clueless EU regulator sees no other way? This is super heavy-handed and makes no sense outside ancient uncompetitive EU tech conglomerates trying to protect their turfs.

>>trepri+gG
Be liable doesn't only mean that if the software you sold *harm* people then they can sue you. It doesn't mean they can sue you for every little bug.

So yes if you sell software, whether it is open source or not, you better have the balls to be liable.

>>TheBig+rQ
"Harm" can over time mean your software was used to view non-approved content etc. Slippery slope...