zlacker

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".

>>friend+(OP)
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.

>>pbhjpb+y5
I see no considerations for why my giving away stuff for free impacting other people's business means that my ability to freely give ought to be regulated. It is my property. I should be free to freely give of it. If that destroys a business then that kinda sucks, but why does it matter to my ability to engage in consensual non-monetary transactions with my property?

>>jurynu+K7
I think that's the opinion of the person replying to you as well.

They're just using that as support for why they disagree with the EU rules, since it can be considered "commercial" even if you're making no money, just because someone is losing money.

>>pbhjpb+y5
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

>>friend+dt
Commerce and business activity are different though. Commerce is business activity directly relating to financial recompense.

MS give away a browser with their OS, that's still business activity but not directly commerce, IMO.

>>jurynu+K7
It can be like the Uber model, no? A company undercuts the market, in this case we're talking about giving product away for free, then when no one else exists in the market they have monopoly control.

Now, you say "but I'm not doing that", however the law needs to account for those who would use the freedom to create something and give it away in order to manipulate the market. It happens.

So in my opinion, whilst I absolutely want to ensure FOSS projects can operate, I also want to ensure large companies can't simply release a product as OSS destroy the market and once captured then only update their commercial offerings, for example. So, it needs a bit of thought.