Users get a service, so it can be argued they are paid in kind. That’s the price of their “free” services.
Whether you agree with that or not, websites are unlikely to pay users to use their services (unless they’re at least providing content) any more than a coffee shop would pay its customers to drink their coffee.
In the latest version of the emergency broadcast specification (WEA 3.0), a smart phone’s GPS capabilities (and other location features) may be used to provide “enhanced geotargeting” so precise boundaries can be set for local alerts. However, the system is backwards compatible – if you do not have GPS, you will still receive an alert, but whether it is displayed depends on the accuracy of the location features that are enabled. If the phone determines it is within the target boundary, the alert will be displayed. If the phone determines it is not within the boundary, it will be stored and may be displayed later if you enter the boundary.
If the phone is unable to geolocate itself, the emergency message will be displayed regardless. (Better to display the alert unnecessarily than to not display it at all).
The relevant technical standard is WEA. Only the latest WEA 3.0 standard uses phone-based geolocation. Older versions just broadcast from cell towers within the region, and all phones that are connected to the towers will receive and display the alerts. You can read about it in more detail here.
Firefox + uBlock origin, and reVanced for YouTube ad-blocking/other features.
Open source software is also notably lacking from the impact assessment documents, but I suspect this is because it was intended to not impact open source software at all. It seems the legislation intends to exclude open-source software, but doesn’t clearly and unambiguously exclude open source software that is developed or contributed to in a commercial setting (e.g by paid contributors).
I think the wording seems clear enough to determine the intent, but the ambiguity surrounding the “commercial activity” part might necessitate trial (which nobody wants to risk), or might lead to poor implementation of this directive in the laws of member states. I think we should be campaigning to improve the wording, not reject it outright.
Ah, OK. So it seems it’s a case of the spirit of the text not matching the precise technical wording used. IMO, the legislation clearly intends to exclude freely-distributable open-source software, but the issue lies with what constitutes a commercial activity. (I’ve not yet checked the rest of the document to see if it clearly defines “commercial activity” in relation to the legislation.)
TBH, it seems that what is needed here is a clarification and tightening up of definitions, not wholesale rejection of the legislation.
Trademarks and copyright are intellectual property.
Why is everyone up in arms about this?
The legislation specifically excludes open source software. Has nobody in this discussion actually read the proposed legislation?
From the current proposal legislation text:
In order not to hamper innovation or research, free and open-source software developed or supplied outside the course of a commercial activity should not be covered by this Regulation. This is in particular the case for software, including its source code and modified versions, that is openly shared and freely accessible, usable, modifiable and redistributable.
There is also a clause that states those using open source software in commercial products must report any vulnerabilities found to the maintainer.
You are partially correct. The general public also has protection written into in law in Canada (Yukon and Nunavut being current exceptions).
From the Ontario “Good Samaritan Act (2001)”, Section 2:
Protection from liability
- (1) Despite the rules of common law, a person described in subsection (2) who voluntarily and without reasonable expectation of compensation or reward provides the services described in that subsection is not liable for damages that result from the person’s negligence in acting or failing to act while providing the services, unless it is established that the damages were caused by the gross negligence of the person. 2001, c. 2, s. 2 (1).[12]
What you are saying really only applies to people who are rendering aid in some kind of professional capacity, or for remuneration. (So a higher bar of competence should be met if it is part of your job to give such assistance, as the above text would not apply to you if it is your job.)
If you are simply helping someone with no expectation of payment, you are not liable for any damages due to your negligence, unless you are acting with gross negligence. And educating yourself in first aid would be a good first step in avoiding negligence.
Gross negligence requires recklessness, or purposeful ignoring of health and safety. If you are acting with good intentions and with due consideration for the health and well being to the best of your ability, it is difficult to see how the bar for gross negligence would be met.
Such “good samaritan” laws are a common feature in many countries around the world, although it should be noted that there are regions (including some in Canada: Yukon and Nunavut) where such laws do not exist.
deleted by creator