zlacker

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?

>>teeray+(OP)
It could be done for some software, but some popular licenses like GPL don't allow additional restrictions on use.

>>kube-s+D
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?

>>quacks+U
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.

>>teeray+(OP)
no common definition of free/open source software (such as the debian free software guidelines) would permit a use restriction like that

>>teeray+(OP)
I'm working on licenses that do that; they become null and void if there is any duty.

Of course, an outside agreement can establish such duties.

>>teeray+(OP)
Yes, but also perhaps be explicit. Ban direct and transient government use.

>>Ekaros+e1
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?

>>teeray+(OP)
Won't work as the CRA overrides any license (this is explicitly written).

>>patrak+o21
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.

>>mycall+Xa1
How can that be though? If there are users using your software where their nation imposes requirements you don’t want to deal with, you should be able to bar those users from using your software. Licensing is typically that mechanism.

Think if it were something else as an exercise: say some nation implemented rules requiring you to pay $10k USD/year to that government as some nonsense open-source fee. Common sense says you should be able to say, in response, “well, then I guess I’m cutting that country off.” If the rule making country shouts “no takebacks!” and supersedes licensing, then wouldn’t that impinge on sovereignty?