On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 09:14:05AM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 11/20/23 00:21, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > Second version, taking into account feedback. Looking for seconds at > > this point: [...] > > Thanks a lot for taking the time to word out things this way. > > However, I really think this text is being too nice with the EU. The feeling > in short is reading: > - what you did was good > - what you did was good > - what you did was good > - oh, btw, there's room for improvement... it'd be nice if... > > That's not at all my feeling about the CRA. I'm once more really unhappy > about EU,
Same here. But... > I feel like we're getting trapped by big corp and their lobbying > power, and we need to use stronger words. Probably in a different way. I'd rather prefer Debian to defend the DFSG, including DFSG 6. If the EU were to draw a line for compulsory liability, then it should not be between commercial and nonprofit, but rather between FOSS and non-FOSS. For example, in my opinion "awscli" is FOSS, and the usual liability disclaimer in FOSS licenses should also be valid for "awscli". This is, in my understanding, a different opinion than discussed so far, right? > > In the absence of something better, I'll still vote for the above... > > Cheers, > > Thomas Goirand (zigo) >
