Comment on Campaigners urge EU to mandate 15 years of OS updates
Buffalox@lemmy.world 2 days ago“owner” is typically the maintainer,
Nope, AFAIK that is not legally applicable, that is very clear with licenses like MIT BSD etc, and for GPL in all versions it’s very explicitly stated in the license.
You can also release as simply public domain, which very obviously means nobody owns as it is owned by everybody.
Generally if you give something away for free, you can’t be claimed to be the owner.
I have no idea where that idea should come from, some typical anti EU alarmists maybe? And I bet there is zero legal precedent for that. And I seriously doubt any lawyer would support your claim.
If however you choose a license where the creator keeps ownership it may be different, but then it’s not FOSS.
ell1e@leminal.space 1 day ago
As far as I understand, the license doesn’t matter for EU regulation.
Buffalox@lemmy.world 1 day ago
If it’s proprietary it doesn’t, between proprietary and FOSS it absolutely does for the reasons I already stated.
ell1e@leminal.space 1 day ago
eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=…
TL;DR, just donations can already be a problem.
Buffalox@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Which exactly includes systems like RedHat which I already included, but in no way includes voluntary FOSS work for free.
Again it’s very much about the money.
NOPE!!!
Donations are not a charge.