[LadyCailin]

I don’t know what this act specifically covers, but if I were a small business that sold (unintentionally) poisonous cookies to my neighbors, I ought very well to be shut down. That applies no matter my revenue stream size (or even if it was zero!) So I don’t find your argument particularly compelling. There is no inherent right to do business, if doing that business is harmful in some way. The E.U. rightly recognizes that consumers in general are more protected that businesses. I much rather this than the capitalist hellhole that the US is turning into.

[friend_and_foe]

Pretending for a second that I don't outright reject your premise (that there is no inherent right to do business)...

You can't just label everything as "doing business" and then regulate it all. If I make something interesting and give everyone in the world the blueprints so they can make one themselves that's not "doing business".

[pbhjpbhj]

IIRC in USA trademark legislation "doing business" has been defined by caselaw as encompassing acts which would harm another person's business such as giving things away for free. So, if one gives away LibreProgram and that takes significant market share away from ClosedProgram sellers then I am "doing business".

Much as I ardently support FOSS (and similar: open hardware, say) I also think this idea has some use and deserves substantial consideration.

It is difficult to draw the line here, much more difficult than it seems at first, in my personal opinion.

[friend_and_foe]

This is very analogous to Wickard v Filbern [1] which basically says that intrastate commerce is interstate commerce if that commerce affects interstate commerce. It is very much absurd on it's face and a thinly veiled power grab by the federal government. It's like saying my breathing affects the air quality and so I must be cognizant of others when I breathe.

I don't find the idea useful to anyone but the unscrupulous. I find it very easy to draw the line. If I design something and publish it and people find it useful and put it to use that's clearly not commerce, that's just creativity.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

[pbhjpbhj]

Commerce and business activity are different though. Commerce is business activity directly relating to financial recompense.

MS give away a browser with their OS, that's still business activity but not directly commerce, IMO.

[jurynulifcation]

I see no considerations for why my giving away stuff for free impacting other people's business means that my ability to freely give ought to be regulated. It is my property. I should be free to freely give of it. If that destroys a business then that kinda sucks, but why does it matter to my ability to engage in consensual non-monetary transactions with my property?

[pbhjpbhj]

It can be like the Uber model, no? A company undercuts the market, in this case we're talking about giving product away for free, then when no one else exists in the market they have monopoly control.

Now, you say "but I'm not doing that", however the law needs to account for those who would use the freedom to create something and give it away in order to manipulate the market. It happens.

So in my opinion, whilst I absolutely want to ensure FOSS projects can operate, I also want to ensure large companies can't simply release a product as OSS destroy the market and once captured then only update their commercial offerings, for example. So, it needs a bit of thought.

[Xelynega]

I think that's the opinion of the person replying to you as well.

They're just using that as support for why they disagree with the EU rules, since it can be considered "commercial" even if you're making no money, just because someone is losing money.

[marcinzm]

What if you needed a full commercial grade license and permit to give some home baked cookies to your co-workers?

edit: Or if we go to the extreme of nothing except the action and potential for negative impact mattering then you'd need a license to give those cookies to your own kids or even yourself.

[pjmlp]

If those co-workers end up in the hospital due to those cookies, better be prepared for talking to some police officers and possible class action depending on what happens to them.

[marcinzm]

That's not the analogy here. Nothing happens. No one is hurt. Everyone loved the cookies. The government however fines you a massive amounts for just providing the cookies that may hurt them potentially but don't actually.

[ekianjo]

> but if I were a small business that sold (unintentionally) poisonous cookies to my neighbors

bad analogies are bad

[thayne]

> if I were a small business that sold (unintentionally) poisonous cookies to my neighbors, I ought very well to be shut down

That depends a lot on the circumstances. If a malicious, sophisticated, actor broke into your shop and poisoned your dough, which resulted in you selling poisonous cookies, should you be liable because your security systems weren't good enough to stop the poisoner?

[matheusmoreira]

Many of us are not "doing business" at all. Programming is my hobby. I cannot justify publishing my projects if doing that could get me sued. I already have enough liability at work.

[izacus]

Good thing publishing your projects is deliberately excluded so you're FUDing.

[matheusmoreira]

"Deliberately excluded" is a pretty strong statement for a law that speaks of:

> commercial activity, whether in return for payment or free of charge

That definitely includes people like me who thought signing up for GitHub Sponsors was a good idea. What's the worst that could happen, right? For all I know it could include projects that accept donations too. Is writing a book about the project or offering screencasts or whatever the same as offering "technical support services"? Is building a community on GitHub or Discord or whatever "providing a software platform through which the manufacturer monetises other services"? Who knows? I'm not a lawyer.

[izacus]

Just like in similar complaints around GDPR, turns out that in practice the bar for these things in EU is much higher than what US lawyers are used to and scaremonger about.

[matheusmoreira]

Feel free to test those particular limits if you'd like. I'm not interested in that.