@kmicu that line of argument is not gonna help us. Free/open source software is both free *and* commercial. See http://blog.ieeesoftware.org/2016/04/dissecting-myth-that-open-source.html?m=1 . #art13 should go away also for commercial use in order for #FOSS to thrive.

@zacchiro Arguments based on facts will help us more, because spreading FUD like “filter ALL of our online content” gives an opportunity to dismiss your point.

Proposed directives have many issues but they only affect *some* *platforms*. For example your personal Pleroma instance or https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git or http://git.blender.org/gitweb/ or http://okmij.org/ftp/Computation/lambda-calc.html should not be considered online content sharing service providers within the meaning of the Directive.

@kmicu keyword is "should", because nobody has at this point any idea about how the directive will be interpreted (or implemented by member states fwiw) in that respect. Are you willing to take that gamble? Because I'm not.

@kmicu ... and still I don't won't it to be applied to "commercial" platforms like for profit code holsters, because they play an important role in the FOSS ecosystem.

@zacchiro that concern is understandable, but is not equivalent to ‘ALL’ in ’filter ALL of our online content’.

A convincing discourse with Art.13/11 proponents requires facts; not problematic statements that can easily backfire.

@zacchiro only some parts of the Directive can be changed by member states. Legal experts and MEPs know¹ that, for sure, the disputed services are not affected. There is no gamble here. Stating that the directive would filter ALL of our online content is not true (and that is also confirmed by the strongest Art.13 opponents incl. Julia Reda).

¹ https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/8ugrow/eu_copyright_ama_we_are_professors_lionel_bently/