[Development] Changes to Qt offering
ville.voutilainen at gmail.com
Mon Jan 27 23:48:50 CET 2020
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 00:43, Benjamin TERRIER <b.terrier at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 23:23, Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Correct. Necessary for specific purpose seems to be what article 5
>> requires, and then you get explicit consent for that
>> specific purpose, and GDPR's articles 5 and 6 are covered (of course
>> the rest of article 5's requirements need to be covered).
>> You're not necessarily going to like that specific purpose (or the
>> outcome of all this, including the consent query),
>> but GDPR requirements don't seem too difficult to fulfil, and there's
>> nothing particular in the new offering that would
>> instantly and obviously go even close to violating GDPR, based on my
>> layman reading of it. I don't think GDPR
>> will change the course of the offering, so if you want to change that
>> course, I think you need a different avenue
>> of argumentation.
> Well it depends on how you interpret the GDPR, a strict interpretation is that since The Qt Company does
> not technically needs email addresses to distribute binary packages, requiring users' email addresses
> does violates the GDPR.
> A loose interpretation is that The Qt Company does require the email addresses for its business model and it is enough to
> be GDPR compliant.
> I guess we will not know which is the correct one until there is a trial with a ruling of the CJEU.
> Until then I do not see the GDPR changi any company business model and offering.
Article 5 doesn't say "technically". I did read it, and I think your
interpretation, and description of what is strict
and what is loose, is highly subjective.
More information about the Development