At some point in the past decade, EU civil servants have completely lost the plot and they now seem to think that creating new reporting obligations is the solution to all problems and that people have nothing better to do that read hundreds of pages of European legalese poorly explaining technical concepts.
The European Green Taxonomy is a brillant exemple. It’s both complicated, costly and a poor way to achieve the goals it wants to achieve.
At this point, I have to assume it’s voluntary self-sabotage.
Considering it's looking very likely that US based companies are going to be locked out of the EU over GDPR and FISA - creating an EU based version of all the major players seems like a very wise move.
To me the whole regulation frenzy looks not as much as locking out US-based companies, but rather limiting power of software industry and community in general in favour of old industries and bureaucrats.
This. But it's the same with everything in Europe - sky-high income tax and VAT, but zero to little inheritance tax, property tax, land value tax, capital gains tax, etc.
Like the idea is to punish workers (skilled and unskilled) and keep the power and wealth in the hands of the aristocrats.
What's the long term play? The climate is so hostile that any success is likely to be rewarded with a regulatory response that mandates giving up any competitive advantage.
I don't see it as attractive for any for-profit investment. Maybe it's the right incubator for open source / nonprofit alternatives?
> I don't see it as attractive for any for-profit investment.
Well don't forget, it applies to non-profits too. Or an individual who makes money from it.
edit: can't reply to the reply below (too nested? IDK).
> I'm not sure I'm understanding your point... could you please elaborate?
My point is the compliance laws apply to "non-profits" (the legal entity) and individuals that make a profit from OSS. Perhaps you covered that in
"for profit" but that term is often used for companies and in contrast to "non-profit"
Yeah, I hear you... the burdens are also real for non-profits and individuals. I should have said it is more about motivations. I wouldn't go into EU to complete against displaced ROW companies in the hopes of making money (personally or as a company or a VC).
But if the mission was to make the world a better place and profit wasn't important, sure. As business-unfriendly as the environment is, it is very consumer friendly, at least in intent. IMO there may be unintended consequences that harm consumers but their hearts are in the right place.
But they could just do that directly - like Russia and China have done with Yandex, VK, WeChat, TikTok, Baidu, etc.
But for some reason the EU is still hooked on neoliberalism and anti-protectionism, even when it has ravaged the continent with the energy crisis and the US monopolising the Tech industry, etc. (remember that the ZX Spectrum, BBC Micro, Acorn, ARM, Linux and Nokia were all European once).
Like in this case - it'd be better to just invest directly into support for EU-based FOSS consultancies to contribute and maintain critical libraries like OpenSSL, LibreSSL, Linux, etc. - and then all EU government and industry would benefit with that, whilst keeping the jobs and investment in the EU.
They're just so short-sighted and dogmatic about neoliberalism (as well as doing whatever the US asks, regardless of the negative effect on Europe). It's no wonder we're being eclipsed by China. Just look at the GDP per capita and Productivity since 2008 - https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?location...
So much this. This morning I was thinking about the supposed CIA handbook to ruin companies, at this stage I wonder if it wasn't done for states.
My wife asked me why I don't create startup, well it's all due to these bullshits.
Because the idea behind it is that commoners like me and you shouldn't be able to start a business without backing of an investor blessed by the EU officials.
That's how they are introducing neo-communism by the backdoor. Technically private initiative is still legal and possible, but it is not in practice.
So if you have an idea, your only option, eventually will be to get hired at one of big corporations and try to sell your idea at one of their start-up incubators.
Difference is that you'll always be a salaried worker (and remain in working class) and shareholders will profit from your idea not yourself.
> But for some reason the EU is still hooked on neoliberalism and anti-protectionism, even when it has ravaged the continent with the energy crisis and the US monopolising the Tech industry, etc. (remember that the ZX Spectrum, BBC Micro, Acorn, ARM, Linux and Nokia were all European once).
So the EU and it's consumer/people right's over company rights caused Russia to invade Ukraine and therefore decrease the supply of energy causing an increase in prices??? This is one of the craziest, nonsensical takes I've ever read.
The EU bureaucracy decided to cripple its economy because they feel like the interests of of a non-EU country are more important than the interests of the european citizens they claim to represent.
The EU politicians and especially the EC members are beyond insane at this point.
This comment is also nonsensical. Russia increasing the energy prices would have happened if NATO stepped in or not. In fact, they would have increased a lot more.
Isn't this how the markets work? You extract the maximum amount of profit. It is not like the Russians were forcing the EU to buy gas from them.
The EU were the ones trying to force Russia to sell gas to everyone, and not only that, but to also deliver it to specific transit routes. Like "you can't cut off Ukraine" because they're gonna freeze or something.
There's a lot of nonsense that is happening just because bureaucrats are stubborn and think the world should work how they dream it at night.
It’s exactly how markets work. Build a dependency and remove
Competitors and raise prices.
Also, part of the issue isn’t Russia raising their prices but a reduction in supply either from Russia removing a supply or countries not wanting to buy from Russia.
I think the draft still some minor kinks to iron out but overall I see it as a good idea. This gives a clear pathway to determine the boundary where a software component becomes more then just “a little experiment” with meaningful impact on a bigger software system.
My first reaction is also that this could be a good thing. We need
secure software infrastructure. Markets have not provided that and
this could be one part of the road to a solution.
Despite the headline this is about all software, not just code
that's developed with open source and software freedom as features.
Now could be the time that FOSS gets to put the many-eyes reasoning to
the test with crowdsourced standards compliance. It could make paid
jobs for open source developers as CE auditors for code. That code is
currently just taken by big companies for free, plus the ingratitude
of blaming developers who work for nothing when it goes wrong.
It's mostly a checklist exercise anyway. So long as there's no
monetary cost to compliance it may create a cadre of OS reviewers who
are skilled and prepared to do it for free for projects they support.
Surely, in a real security meritocracy the cruft that passes for
"closed proprietary" software will soon be exposed for what it is. How
long will Windows 11 last in an environment with good security
culture?
Proprietary software will not only have to compete against free, it
will have to compete against _good_, and certified good free and
commercial FOSS. The FUD, disinformation and fearmongering of Big Tech
and it's shills may end up having less impact, not more.
OTOH I doubt this will impact hobby developers and Non-Commercial FOSS
that comes with liability disclaimers from the get-go. It will
however, impact those who want to take that work and deploy it in
critical roles for commercial gain.
