[open-regulatory-compliance] Flowchart from a natural person's perspecti

[Dirk-Willem van Gulik <dirkx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Here is my attempt at a more flowchart form for natural persons (mostly in reaction to some private questions).

Mainly to see if this teases out other questions/issues. 

I’ve been a bit black and white/over the top in below; somewhat intentional to see if this helps us get better boundaries for the vague areas; and if there are things we can simply take as right — and we can focus on the ‘indicators’ for these.

Dw.

10: Do I personally contribute to an open source project ?

	E.g. do I sent in patches or do I post bugfixes to an Open Source project ? Or do I do a pull request ?

 	No: 	Do I contribute to that open source project as part of job; because my boss wants it ? 

		I.e. in the boss his time (also if I am my own boss - where it is part of what I deliver to my customers) ?

		Yes: 	Generally - the CRA is not your problem, but your bosses their problem. 

			This flowchart is not for them.
	
			goto 20

		No: 	goto 20


	Yes:	Do I have a committer license agreement (CLA) with that open source Project and do you contribute under that license ?

		Or do you contribute to a project with an implied contribution agreement that is part of the projects open source license ?

			Yes:	While it depends on the minutiae; you are almost certainly fine if it is one of the many typical ASF variations of a CLA.

				goto 20

			No:	you are probably fine; but would be good to introduce a CLA

				goto 20

20:	Are you maintaining or operating a public software repositories of open source ?

			Yes: 	You are probably fine
				
				goto 30

			No: 	goto 30

30:	Are you developing ppen source software in the course of a commercial activity ? 

	i.e. is it placed such that others (downstream) can use it in lasting ways as these downstream parties go about their lives or business ?

			Yes: 	goto 40

			No:  	You are probable fine

				So you are a pure hobbyist; no one really uses your code; or others if so - and if they do so - it does not result on something lasting that exposes it to other people beyond the person who you directly shared it with.

				END

40:	Are you monetising the work you do on this open source ?

	For example you XXXX?

			Yes:	Go read the CRA. This flow chart is not for you.

				END
			
			No: 	goto 50

50:	Is there a group of people and/or legal persons that you are part of, where there is the shared objective or purpose  to create, maintain, publish that open source licensed code ?

	A typical indication is that you call yourself a group; have a website; have a SCM you all have access to; may have created a more formal legal vehicle; such as a foundation, society or similar, practice some software/release engineering and that you create some forms of processes and rules.

			Yes:	> hit the superset or either/or issue of legal/natural person <

				goto 60

			No:	You are probable fine - depending a bit on the answer to above super/subset issue
	
				END

60:	Is the purpose of that open source such that it is intended; or quite possibly, to be used `downstream’, including by others in a commercial setting ?

	Typical indications of this are things like a SCM, release notes, versions numbers, READMEs, makefiles, including in repositories, systemd scripts to start/stop, an FAQ, A manual, a bug database, non directly involved developers submitting bugs or asking questions, etc.

			Yes:	goto 70
		
			No: 	You are probable fine - and you and a few mates are working on something very internal; such as the open source code for a large model transit you are building together

				END

70	Is there an aspect of a sustained basis & ensuring longer term viability of the product. 

	So think proper release engineering, fixing bugs, doing risk-based triage, responsible disclosure, filing CVEs, disclosing unsolved vulnerabilities in the release notes, peer review of the releases, timely releases, etc ?

			Yes:	You are probably an open source steward.

				END

			No:  	You probably want to step up your organisational maturity. So that your software is generally `fit for purpose’; and some abandonware does not catch anyone of guard by accident. E.g. much like you would not leave a razorblade where a child could find it.

				 As the CRA was designed to clam down on exactly this type of situation.

				END