zlacker

Can you comment on the part starting with

> What if an open source project is used directly by consumers, and causes them harm? The public policy is clear: they must be compensated.

It's expressly not clear what the implications here are, according to the article.

>>Mauran+(OP)
If the consumers don't pay for it (not under a commercial agreement with the OSS provider) and are not monetized (with tracking data or ads in the OSS), it's pretty clear the OSS provider isn't liable.

>>Mauran+(OP)
The article is written by the CEO of a big tech lobbying group[0] who is trying to spread FUD to prevent the changes to the EU’s PLD that would include software once the intended changes go into effect.

The part you quoted continues with:

> Their business is bankrupt, their files are in a hacker’s hands, or their own customers are suing them.

Those are not consumers. That's B2B and comes with significantly lesser protections (if any) in EU law due to the EU’s view of B2B relationships being less asymmetrical w/r/t power and businesses being better at assessing the risks.

The implications are clear because this is not some new thing the EU conjured out of thin air but rather an expansion of which products will fall under the PLD, so we know how this has shaken out historically.

The long and short of it is that with physical merchandise, manufacturers have long been liable if their products caused damage (e.g., batteries of electric scooters catching fire). Still, when it came to software, companies often just shrugged and said, “We provided it as is, so tough luck.” The EU now says that's simply not good enough, and software companies should be held to the same liability standards as merchandise manufacturers.

Software lobbyists, of course, don't like this, so to stop that, they've decided to spread FUD about FOSS.

That's it, that's the story.

0: https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php/Developers_Alliance