The Cyber Resiliency Act

As a tech professional and passionate advocate for Free Open Source Software (FOSS), I'm deeply concerned about a proposed European Union law that could fundamentally alter the landscape of open source development. The Cyber Resiliency Act (CRA) sounds well-intentioned, but its potential impact on the open source community could be devastating.

Understanding the Cyber Resiliency Act

The CRA represents a new legal framework designed to improve software and hardware security across the European Union. The core concept involves:

• CE Certification for Software: Allowing the EU to stamp software products with CE signs
• Common Security Metrics: Providing standardized ways to judge a project's security
• Consumer Information: Offering better information about software security status
• Regulatory Compliance: Establishing legal requirements for software security

On the surface, this seems like a reasonable goal. Who wouldn't want better software security and clearer information for consumers? But as with many regulatory frameworks, the devil is in the details.

The Open Source Dilemma

The fundamental problem with the CRA lies in how it treats open source software and the developers who create it. The proposed framework could:

"The CRA could make open source developers liable for any security issues in their software, despite their current licenses clearly stating that the software is provided 'as is' without any warranty."

Why This Matters to Everyone

You might think this only affects developers, but the implications reach far beyond the coding community:

Innovation Stifling

Open source software drives innovation across virtually every sector of technology. When developers become personally liable for security issues in software they create and maintain for free, many will simply stop contributing. This would slow technological progress across the EU.

Economic Impact

Countless businesses rely on open source frameworks and libraries. If these become unavailable or legally risky to use, companies face expensive alternatives: developing everything from scratch or licensing proprietary solutions.

Competitive Disadvantage

While EU developers face new legal risks and restrictions, developers in other regions continue innovating freely. This creates a competitive disadvantage for European technology companies.

A Real-World Example

The timing of this proposed legislation couldn't be worse for me personally. I'm currently at the crux of a corporate decision about whether to implement an open source framework for a global business workflow solution. The CRA introduces a terrifying scenario:

What happens if the framework we choose suddenly becomes unavailable because the developers are forced to shoulder the responsibility and risk of framework security?

In that case, we'd be left with two costly alternatives:

• Develop from scratch: A time-consuming and expensive process
• License proprietary alternatives: Often more costly and less flexible

This uncertainty alone is enough to make businesses hesitant about adopting open source solutions, which undermines one of the key benefits of the open source ecosystem.

The Community Response

The open source community hasn't been silent on this issue. The Open Source Initiative has submitted detailed feedback to the European Commission, advocating for open source software to be excluded from the scope of this new regulation.

Their arguments center on several key points:

• Open source software operates on a fundamentally different model than commercial software
• Volunteer developers shouldn't face the same legal obligations as commercial vendors
• The collaborative nature of open source development already provides strong security through transparency
• Imposing commercial-style liability on volunteer projects would destroy the ecosystem

Balancing Security and Innovation

I want to be clear: I absolutely understand and support the importance of software security. In my career, I've seen firsthand the damage that insecure software can cause. Better security practices, clearer information for consumers, and improved standards are all worthy goals.

However, the proposed CRA seems to misunderstand how open source software works and the role it plays in the broader technology ecosystem. A more nuanced approach might include:

• Excluding non-commercial open source projects from liability requirements
• Focusing regulations on commercial distributors rather than individual developers
• Supporting security research and tools that help open source projects improve
• Creating incentives for security improvements rather than punitive measures
• Recognizing the difference between volunteer projects and commercial products

Looking Forward

The European Commission still has time to revise the CRA based on community feedback. I hope they will seriously consider the concerns raised by the open source community and make the necessary adjustments to ensure that this well-intentioned legislation doesn't inadvertently harm the very innovation ecosystem it should be protecting.

The future of technology development in Europe may well depend on getting this balance right. We need security, but not at the cost of innovation. We need consumer protection, but not at the expense of the collaborative development model that has given us some of our most important technological advances.

What You Can Do

If you care about technology innovation, open source software, or simply want to ensure that well-meaning regulations don't have unintended consequences, consider:

• Learning more about the CRA and its potential impacts
• Supporting organizations like the Open Source Initiative that advocate for reasonable policies
• Engaging with your representatives about the importance of open source software
• Participating in public consultations when they become available

The Cyber Resiliency Act represents a critical moment for the future of software development in Europe. Let's make sure we get it right.

All Posts