Futures

Challenges for Open Source Compliance in the Cyber Resilience Act, (from page 20230521.)

External link

Keywords

Themes

Other

Summary

The Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) proposes that European standards bodies create standards to simplify compliance, but this poses challenges for Open Source communities. Critics argue that the European Standardisation Organizations (ESO) are corporate-driven and inaccessible, making it difficult for Open Source projects to engage. These organizations, like CEN, CENELEC, and ETSI, operate with high costs and are controlled by industries that may not understand or prioritize the needs of Open Source. The article stresses the necessity for legislation to ensure Open Source representation in standards development, warning that without it, compliance procedures could be prohibitively expensive for developers.

Signals

name description change 10-year driving-force relevancy
Corporate Control of Standards Bodies Standards bodies in Europe are controlled by corporations and national industries, limiting Open Source influence. From limited corporate control to potential inclusive practices for Open Source projects. Standards bodies may evolve to be more inclusive of Open Source, reducing corporate dominance. Growing recognition of Open Source contributions and the need for diverse participation in standards development. 4
Exclusion of Open Source in Standards Development Open Source projects lack access and representation in European standards organizations. From exclusion of Open Source to potentially integrated representation in standards development. Open Source communities could gain formal representation in standard-setting processes, enhancing their influence. Increasing demand for transparency and inclusivity in technology governance and standards. 5
Need for Legislative Changes in CRA Legislation arising from the CRA must include measures for Open Source consultation. From neglecting Open Source in standards to mandated inclusion in regulatory processes. Legislation could evolve to ensure all stakeholders, including Open Source, are consulted in standards formulation. Pressure from the Open Source community and advocates for equitable representation in policy-making. 5
Challenges for Small Players in Standards Engagement High costs and complexity of engaging with standards bodies hinder small Open Source projects. From unfeasible participation to potential affordable pathways for small players. New models for participation may emerge, allowing small Open Source projects to engage meaningfully in standards. The push for democratizing access to standards processes and reducing barriers for small entities. 4

Concerns

name description relevancy
Corporate Control of Standards European standards bodies are predominantly controlled by corporate interests, potentially neglecting Open Source contributions. 4
Accessibility for Open Source Projects Only a few organizations handle standards, making it difficult and expensive for Open Source projects to participate. 5
Incompatibility with Open Source Licensing Standards bodies advocate for FRAND licensing, which conflicts with Open Source principles, limiting community support. 5
Lack of Community Representation Open Source communities are not adequately consulted in the standards development process, risking uninformed decisions. 5
Financial Burden on Open Source Developers Compliance with standards may force Open Source developers to incur prohibitive costs for third-party audits. 4
Misunderstanding Community Dynamics Legislators and corporate members may lack an understanding of Open Source community operations, leading to poor outcomes. 4

Behaviors

name description relevancy
Advocacy for Open Source Inclusion There is a push for legislation to mandate the inclusion of Open Source communities in standards development processes. 5
Critique of Corporate Influence in Standards Growing concern over the control of standards bodies by corporate interests, which may marginalize Open Source perspectives. 4
Call for Transparency in Standards Development Demand for more transparency in the proceedings and decision-making processes of standards organizations. 4
Recognition of Open Source as a Social Movement A shift in understanding Open Source not just as a development model but as a broader social movement with diverse applications. 5
Need for Affordable Compliance Solutions Highlighting the financial barriers for Open Source projects in complying with standards, pushing for more accessible solutions. 5
Engagement with Diverse Stakeholders Emphasis on the importance of involving various community voices, not just corporate representatives, in standards discussions. 5

Technologies

name description relevancy
Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) A legislative proposal aimed at enhancing cybersecurity practices and standards across Europe, particularly for Open Source software. 4
European Standardisation Organizations (ESO) Organizations responsible for developing standards in Europe, potentially affecting Open Source software accessibility and compliance. 3
FRAND Licensing A licensing framework that requires fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms for patents, posing challenges for Open Source communities. 3
Conformity Assessment Procedures Processes to ensure that products meet certain standards, which may impose financial burdens on Open Source developers. 3
Open Source Community Engagement The need for standards bodies to consult with Open Source communities to ensure their needs are met in legislative contexts. 5

Issues

name description relevancy
Open Source Inclusion in Standards Development The need for European standards bodies to consult and include Open Source communities in the standards development process. 5
Corporate Influence in Standards Bodies Concerns about the corporate control and high costs associated with participation in European Standardisation Organizations. 4
Accessibility of Standards for Small Players The challenges small Open Source projects face in engaging with expensive and inaccessible standards development organizations. 4
Impact of FRAND Licensing on Open Source Potential incompatibility of FRAND licensing practices with the principles of Open Source software development. 4
Legislative Measures for Open Source Representation The necessity for future legislation to mandate the inclusion of Open Source perspectives in standards setting. 5