zlacker

> the worst case scenario is that it turns out to be bad for developers and for free software.

Which would in turn be very bad for society.

>>squigz+(OP)
To be clear I agree with this, I didn't intend to downplay the impact of that consequence. I think the continued existence of free software is both a practical and moral necessity.

What I was trying to communicate here is that I think meaningful negative impact to free software and to developers is a worst-case scenario and not the most likely scenario. It's plausible, and we should be concerned, but I think there's also a plausible outcome that is neutral or positive for free software if companies end up contributing more to free software as a way of ensuring they are meeting their obligations under the law.

>>rebecc+Ex
Thanks for the clarification :)