[orclev]

Don't need to actually block EU downloads, just state that no open source software is certified for commercial usage in the EU. Any company that ignores that is now in violation of this law and that's their problem. The EU will need to decide if they want to allow their businesses to continue benefiting from open source software or fix this law.

The interesting question is really what happens when commercial software companies outside the EU that use open source libraries decide they don't want to deal with this headache _also_ start refusing to certify their software for use in the EU and stop doing business there.

[Dah00n]

That's not possible with GPL etc. code. Especially since most repos are not even in the US and you can't change the license.

[orclev]

Why not? Nothing in the GPL says you need to certify your code for commercial usage in the EU.

Edit: In fact, reading the GPL it looks like it might implicitly already preclude usage in the EU under this law. There's this section right here:

    11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
    12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

That seems to suggest that any cost associated with certifying for commercial usage in the EU would fall on the company using the GPL licensed code, not the developers of the licensed code. Certifying the code for commercial usage under the EU law I would argue would be a warranty, one explicitly declaimed already by the GPL.

[deafpolygon]

The CRA is designed to fix that "problematic" passage in the GPL, and push responsibility back onto the company creating open source software.

I don't think this will impact any hobbyist open source developer - it is primarily going to impact commercial 'opencore' companies. I wouldn't be surprised if this targets companies like Red Hat / IBM, etc. Or benefits them. I'm not sure yet.

Microsoft is probably laughing all the way to the bank, and this will just solidify their hold on the European market.