Sidebar on the CRA, which was mentioned
Sidebar on the CRA, which was mentioned
Posted Oct 6, 2025 16:04 UTC (Mon) by farnz (subscriber, #17727)In reply to: Sidebar on the CRA, which was mentioned by zdzichu
Parent article: F-Droid and Google's Developer Registration Decree
This is not legal advice - this is forwarding on conversations I've had with a lawyer.
Posted Oct 6, 2025 16:38 UTC (Mon)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (4 responses)
My motto is "trust but verify" when dealing with "the professionals", because they're wrong more often than not. And that includes when I'm paying them! Lawyers especially, but we (as a family) have been badly hurt by doctors, too ...
Seriously, putting free fruit outside your door for other people can be classed as a business activity? It is a cardinal principle of Free Software, that whatever you do with one piece of software MUST NOT impact what you're allowed to do with a different piece of software.
Saying that your jam sugar business is affected - in any way whatsoever - by the fact that you leave surplus fruit outside your door (and vice versa), is a complete breach of Free Software principles. And it's almost certainly a breach of business principles too, otherwise what's the point of breaking a company up in to subsidiaries? One reason they do it is to prevent legal liabilities leaking between entities!!!
And I can't see a Judge buying the claim that leaving fruit outside your door in a "wing and a prayer" hope that they'll buy your sugar, connects the two activities in any legal way shape or form whatsoever.
Gedanken experiment again - if you have ABSOLUTELY NO RECORDS - how are the Revenue going to tax the free fruit you left outside? And if there are no records, how are they going to prove it was you? (There's a strong argument that other peoples' testimony is irrelevant, because if "I saw someone leaving fruit outside your door" is innocent for pretty much everyone, surely that "everyone" includes you!)
Cheers,
Posted Oct 6, 2025 17:00 UTC (Mon)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (2 responses)
WTF do the "Cardinal Principles of Free Software" have to do with the legal definition of commercial activity in your (or any other) jurisdiction?
(BTW, in my jurisdiction, the threshold for "commercial activity" is _very_ low indeed)
Posted Oct 6, 2025 23:14 UTC (Mon)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (1 responses)
If two things have no causal connection, they should not affect each other in any way. Be it Free Software (as required by DSG), or business activity. Certainly in the UK, one major point of subsidiaries in business is show the absence of causal connection between them.
> (BTW, in my jurisdiction, the threshold for "commercial activity" is _very_ low indeed)
How low? Kids collecting stamps and swapping them in the playground? I'd define it as "an activity that requires keeping records in pursuit of being sustainable". I didn't use the word "profit", because we have the concept of non-profits, but they have to avoid losing money in order to survive.
Cheers,
Posted Oct 6, 2025 23:39 UTC (Mon)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link]
How *you* define it doesn't matter one scintilla. What matters is what the IRS or HRMC (or the equivalent for your jurisdiction) says it is.
Posted Oct 6, 2025 17:08 UTC (Mon)
by farnz (subscriber, #17727)
[Link]
The details are complex, and the reason it's set the way it is is that they want to stop you breaking into parts in order to escape a liability that you would otherwise incur; that's why the original CRA drafts had no exceptions at all (which would have been a disaster for open source), and why the exceptions to liability that now exist are non-trivial.
Sidebar on the CRA, which was mentioned
Wol
Sidebar on the CRA, which was mentioned
Sidebar on the CRA, which was mentioned
Wol
Sidebar on the CRA, which was mentioned
This is definitely a case where you're applying your "common sense" ideas of what the law "should" be, and ought to talk to an actual lawyer.
Sidebar on the CRA, which was mentioned