It does seem like they have explicit provisions to exempt those distributing non-commercial OS/FOSS from these requirements. This is in keeping with the EU's promotion/funding of public benefit software.
Or what if the open source library itself is provided by a company. Let’s say Intel’s IPMI library has a vulnerability that affects Dell servers and causes a breach at a bank in Paris.
This applies to all software that is part of a commercial interaction, no matter whether the other party has to pay for the software or not. The software could be part of a device or be part of a certain service.
I understood that as long as the developers of open software are not involved in a commercial interaction, they cannot be held liable. I guess that if you receive some kind of support (a grant) for developing open source software, you are not immediately in a commercial interaction. But if you have some kind of agreement with an organization to develop or maintain open source software specific for that organization, that could count as commercial interaction.
I think that's the risk. It's not clear what counts as a commercial interaction. eg I built a lib used for data analysis of bio samples. I have occasionally done some consulting for users, but nothing in over a decade. Does that count as commercial interaction? It's unclear to me. I'm considering deleting the open source and/or updating the license to ban the EU.
Like obviously this is a very low probability risk, but I don't care to take any risks for something that I give away for free :shrug:
Separately, the idea that I have to have a security policy or any other thing; I decline.
It seems very unlikely that such a lib in itself has any cyber security risk as long as it itself does not query an external database through a network connection.
The users of the lib have to asses that it has no security risk.
Did you sign any formal agreement with the users of the lib? Is there still any obligsation on your side with respect to the lib?
If you would discover some security issue, like a buffer overrun, would you fix it? Then just mentioning it, would be enough. The users of the lib bear the greatest responsibility. They have to regularly check your lib for security problems.
It almost certainly has tons, because it was not designed to read attacker-controlled images or data files. If someone uses it that manner, I would be absolutely shocked if it doesn't. The testing suite focuses exclusively on correctness and speed.
> If you would discover some security issue, like a buffer overrun, would you fix it?
No. I don't use this work; I no longer work in science; etc. It's just a gift to other people of several years of work and a ton of time in vtune making it go fast.
The company owning the certification owns the responsibility. No cheating through cheap cyber security consultant chop shops from India anymore.
Which seems like common sense to me. It's good when the law mirrors common sense.
That is incorrect per my understanding. If that open source org offers eg paid support, they likely have liability, at least in the EU. Now they're probably, practically speaking, judgement proof. But they do have liability. see [1]
[1] https://ubuntu.com/blog/the-cyber-resilience-act-what-it-mea...
Note that "can be liable" does not mean "will pay so much money they go bankrupt". It just means that normal liability rules will apply and that person is not shielded from liability. If I sold you a broken car saying it was in perfect order, I may be liable, but if I can prove a mechanic told me it was in perfect order and I didn't break it after that, I may be able to transfer my liability to them. Now, if because the car was faulty, you crashed into a children's picnic, your car exploded into flames and and killed an entire orphanage, I or the mechanic may still go bankrupt paying their medical bills...
And something now that only idiots do. And the reason no physical world analogies apply in the slightest is even if you give away (not sell) a car or some other physical possession, you don't sell a million copies and incur liability across a million users. For that same $0 cost. While that free download incurs effectively unbounded liability.
Offering $1k of support to a user of your code creates an obligation to any user in the EU, regardless of whether you know their name or not.