This seems to be about liability for injury, not liability in general. It's probably about software that manages critical processes or hardware which might cause physical harm if malfunction.<p>CMIIW, but this appears to be an attempt to clarify who is at fault when a device malfunctions due to software issue and allow a manufacturer in Czechia to use software from Poland without dealing with differences on Czech and Polish laws and regulations over software.
EU countries have 2 years to legislate the national implementations.<p>FOSS exemption but only for "outside commercial activity" - whatever that will mean.<p>I guess that guy in Nebraska is safe, but not so sure about my own one-man company.
> In order not to hamper innovation or research, this Directive should not apply to free and open-source software developed or supplied outside the course of a commercial activity, since products so developed or supplied are by definition not placed on the market. Developing or contributing to such software should not be understood as making it available on the market. Providing such software on open repositories should not be considered as making it available on the market, unless that occurs in the course of a commercial activity<p>Can't this wording easily be interpreted that commercial entities publishing open source software counts as a commercial activity? Wouldn't that kill corporate sponsored open source overnight? You could even argue Redhat (IBM) would be responsible for every user of any of their linux kernel patches/services no?<p>If not, what does this wording actually apply to?
Who will be liable for "defective" directives and regulations? I would like to sue someone for all the wasted time and effort around cookie popups.
The product liability directive holds all producers jointly liable for any harm caused by unsafe or defective products - including software. So, people who supply 'software as component' or software service may be held responsible for the safety of the products that incorporate or use the software.
But people can also claim for the loss, corruption or destruction of 'personal data' caused by product defects.
So this means it will be easier/possible to sue developers/companies for defective software? How is this anything other than a cash grab by lawyers?
Interesting to see from the press release that Right to Repair is being cracked down upon:<p>When a product is repaired and upgraded outside the original manufacturer’s control, the company or person that modified the product should be held liable.<p>Will we see companies sue repair shops or compatible component manufacturers in order to prevent potential injury to their customers. Interesting times.
Who decides the definition of "what was suppose to work" in the context of a given software product?<p>There are times when a feature is used in a way which was not intended by the developers. Now do the developers have to publish their test scenarios?<p>What if the bug is in 3rd party library? Add to it the complexity of open-source code.
So if you only market/sell your software outside of the EU then this wouldn’t apply, correct? If someone bought it in the USA and then moved capital equipment to the EU with said software I would think the law isn’t enforceable in that or similar situations?
Is the exemption for open source adequate? There are clear exemptions for non-profits and source distribution, but what about things such as FOSS distributed as binaries in commercial Linux distro repos?
Honestly, it's about time. I've paid for so many things that fail because of defective software, and had limited or no recourse.<p>As a result, software companies are incentivized to make software full of hardly-used features with limited testing; because there are no consequences when software doesn't do what the claim is.
So I can't just blame my bullshit on "the computer" or say that AI ate my homework and have to own it? Terroble times. Next thing, evil bureacrats will then make me actually care and owm broken accessibility.
I wonder if this will speed up the push to "renting" software as opposed to buying it.<p>By that I mean, in order to use any software product, you will need to phone home and what you do is logged on a server. This way, the vendor may be able to find a way to blame you for a violation.