Not a very good interpretation of the law, but I'm sure it gets a lot of traffic. The EU definition of online intermediation services specifies that a contractual relationship must exist. It's focused on businesses.
RPM repositories, apt repositories, pkgsrc, and so forth are therefore completely unaffected, as there's no contractual relationship between the providers and users.
Elementary OS, Flatpak, and Canonical's Snap store might have trouble here, and need to implement further controls to be compliant. But nothing is going to "outlaw open source operating systems."
Exactly my thought.
It is hard to correctly read and understand laws (whether proposed or not). Especially if one is not a lawyer, any such commentary should be done extra carefully.
There are contractual relationships between the services and business users: the open source license agreements. These are legal agreements between the copyright holders and the distributors. Does that not fulfill requirement 2.2.c in EU regulation 2019/1150?
No, for a couple of reasons. Primarily the services rendered (i.e. the data in the packages) are not "normally for remuneration" (i.e. nobody is paying to access them specifically).
EU law is cloudier on whether a copyright license constitutes a contract. Under common law there has to be consideration for a contract. Not all EU member states require that, but enough do that I think they'd leave it alone.
RPM repositories, apt repositories, pkgsrc, and so forth are therefore completely unaffected, as there's no contractual relationship between the providers and users.
Elementary OS, Flatpak, and Canonical's Snap store might have trouble here, and need to implement further controls to be compliant. But nothing is going to "outlaw open source operating systems."