• vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 day ago

    so, if a company decides to, for example, start using some MIT licensed software, does that suddenly materialize extra responsibilities for that software’s dev?

    • logging_strict@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      10 hours ago

      No. The FOSS dev would turn around and tell the entire world to go pound sand

      The devs are under no obligations to do squat. Which includes responding to any EU requests.

      If anyone has a problem with a FOSS project, they are welcome to fork the repo and maintain it themselves. And then send love letters back and forth to the EU.

      If anyone is sent a request by the EU, i’m here to help. Some ideas to include in a response.

      Shouldn’t EU be focusing on Ukraine and throwing their males into a meat grinder?

      EU does not have free speech. Why take them seriously? Why have any expectations of them?

    • souperk@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      22 hours ago

      My understanding is that the company would be regulated by CRA and not the developer. However, that does not stop the company from pushing the developer for CRA compliance.

      • logging_strict@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 hours ago

        Wait? Are we pretending the corps are actually the FOSS devs?

        A Corp dev, aka a FOSS dev forced into societal job creation servitude making throw away smartphone apps, web sites, and now AI models.

        Gets paid to not be a productive person. Is essential what a societal job creation program is. Actually accomplishing anything is a random flaw and not the intent of employing devs.

        The alternative would be to fund the dev to concentrate on maintenance efforts of their repos which the entire world depends on.

        And if you don’t believe me, just explain one thing. What’s the pip-tools maintainer up to? Cuz it’s definitely not focused on pip-tools maintenance

        Would definitely be interested to check in daily to watch what he’s doing. Can throw parties to watch some of the most influential and important people on the planet do the equivalent of digging ditches, refilling them, then doing it again.

        • ZeroOne@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          I tried talking to them about the notion of breaking the monopoly of GIT & was talking about Fossil They literally went don’t care “Git is good enough” they’re literally talentless monkeys

      • Rogue@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        14 hours ago

        That’s actually pretty reasonable. I’d be happy to make my open source projects compliant for a company - but they can damn well pay me for the effort.

          • Rogue@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 hours ago

            Indeed, that’s why I use the AGPL license. Corporations hate it because it forces them to give back.

            • logging_strict@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 hours ago

              it's free as in go pound sand if you aren't going to fund maintainers

              it doesn’t force them to do anything until devs refuse to work for any company that doesn’t.

              i’m with you on agplv3+. The copyright recognition document comes before the resume.