I found the doumentation in english…
https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/cyber-resilience-act
1 Like
I opened this thread just for those videos by morrolinux that I use to follow regularly.
Thanks to have posted those link!
1 Like
Thank you!
1 Like
That’s the deal!
The owner is who created this system. It’s like the network marketing’s “pyramid”… you can climb it but you can’t achieve the top of it. I grew up listening to people saying that “no one can control the net”… but the net is controlled by those has created it. It’s not possible in nature hive off an owner by his property, unless this kind of person renounce to it by their will. What I consider with the opening of this topic is that what now seems to be less serious could become more serious in too less time. Nowadays, everything is filtered with tecnology and the goal is not about money anymore, but it’s about control. To now, money is the way to get control… but what about when control is achived? Europe is like a port… more ships are anchored to it. Money are no more necessary, because someone has achieved control. In my opinion (and I repeat: “in my opinion”) everything about the abolition of cash and the introduction of the values like bitcoin, ethereum and/or whatever you want, it’s about this. Laws changed at the speed of light. It’s not about the simple concept of “richness” but it’s about a geopolitical control… and everything pass through computers and code. The most of you on this forum are expert unlike me, but I guess that I don’t make mistakes saying that.
Reading your whole post, I can’t understand everything about the sense of what you want to say, anyway, remember that RH is controlled by IBM and Suse is another big one.
What I say is that with this law, someone is gradually
trying to “fly over” any kind of license. For sure, control of the code is a good thing for security risks… but I guess the most of hacking/cracking attack are not from real criminals but calculated in another way, with specific target. It’s stinks like a secret war with a mask of normality.
That’s the paradox because some commercial are made with non-commercial. That’s the strange part. So, what they consider about both?
In the consumers’ world (and laws), the (last) provider has full liability for the end product they sell/provide.
So, if someone sells a product which includes open source software from other developers, he has the responsibility to the consumer for any damage (not the other devs).
1 Like
Both are the other face of the coin, if you have control you make more money, if you have money you can get more control!
From the OP I understood that open source software is targeted. So, I meant what is the response of RH and Suse.
and after I read it open source is not targeted. On the contrary it is excluded!
I don’t see any issue with what this act is trying to achieve. It’s an act to try to protect the security and privacy and provide transparency.
I wish people would just stop this nonsense. 
4 Likes
It’s not the software itself, it’s the commercial use of it.