Search every question across sub-FAQs

Not to the administrative fines referred to in Article 64(3) to (9).

Article 64(10)(b) expressly says those administrative fines do not apply to infringements of the Regulation by open-source software stewards.

The manufacturer still has due-diligence obligations for its own product.

Article 13(5) requires manufacturers to exercise due diligence when integrating third-party components, including free and open-source software components that have not been made available on the market in the course of a commercial activity, so those components do not compromise the cybersecurity of the final product.

It must report the vulnerability upstream and remediate it in its own product.

Article 13(6) says that where manufacturers identify a vulnerability in an integrated component, including an open-source component, they must report it to the person or entity manufacturing or maintaining the component, address and remediate it in accordance with the CRA vulnerability-handling requirements, and share the relevant fix or documentation where appropriate.

The integrating manufacturer remains responsible for user-facing security information for the finished product.

If a vulnerability in an integrated open-source component affects the product, the Commission FAQ says the manufacturer still has to fulfil its own vulnerability-handling duties, including keeping users informed, providing mitigating measures, and updating documentation. For software versions or products where support ends, the draft guidance also points to the CRA requirement to inform users when vulnerability remediation for earlier versions is discontinued and users need to upgrade.

No, not in general.

If a manufacturer places open-source software on the market in the course of a commercial activity, the ordinary CRA manufacturer regime applies to that product. The main special rule is Article 32(5), which preserves access to the Article 32(1) conformity-assessment procedures for Annex III products qualifying as free and open-source software if the technical documentation is made public at the time of placing on the market.

In one specific case, yes.

Article 32(5) allows manufacturers of Annex III products qualifying as free and open-source software to use one of the Article 32(1) procedures, including module A, provided the technical documentation referred to in Article 31 is made available to the public at the time of placing on the market.

The Commission FAQ explains this as preserving the possibility of module A for important class I and class II free and open-source software when that public-documentation condition is met.

Yes.

Article 25 empowers the Commission to establish voluntary security attestation programmes for free and open-source software, in particular to facilitate the due-diligence obligation for manufacturers integrating such components.

The timing is split.

Article 24(3), because it links to Article 14 reporting obligations, becomes relevant from 11 September 2026 when Article 14 starts to apply. The rest of the Regulation, including the main Article 24 obligations, applies from 11 December 2027.

No.

Article 3(48) requires both a qualifying free and open-source licence and that the source code be openly shared. The March 2026 draft guidance says "openly shared" means publicly available, not merely shared on a restricted or conditional basis. So software whose source code is available only to paying customers or a limited user group is not FOSS within the CRA's definition.

Responsibility lies with those who publish the FOSS and exercise primary control over its development, releases, and distribution decisions.

The March 2026 draft guidance says contributors who merely submit code are not responsible on that basis alone, even if they have technical permissions such as commit access. Responsibility is tied to publishing and control over releases, roadmaps, or governance decisions.

No.

The March 2026 draft guidance says that a monetised version and a free or community version should be treated as different products for CRA purposes. The paid version is placed on the market if it is monetised. The free or community version is not placed on the market on that basis alone.

If the publisher is a legal person, that same entity may still be the steward for the free or community version if the steward conditions are met. If the publisher is a natural person, the free or community version may instead fall outside the CRA.

Yes, potentially.

The March 2026 draft guidance says that, particularly for natural persons publishing FOSS, bundled support does not by itself amount to commercial activity where the price serves only to recover actual costs. It adds that those actual costs can include design, development, and maintenance costs, including reasonable living expenses and fair remuneration for the person.

No, not on that basis alone.

The March 2026 draft guidance says a person offering technical support services for a FOSS that is not under its responsibility is not deemed to be placing that FOSS on the market, unless it substantially modifies the FOSS as part of delivering those services.

No.

The March 2026 draft guidance says steward status is assessed project by project. A foundation can be a steward for specific FOSS intended for commercial activities where it provides sustained support and ensures viability. But merely hosting other FOSS projects, without systematic support, a viability role, or software intended for commercial activities, does not make it the steward for those other projects.

No.

All stewards must comply with the policy and cooperation duties in Article 24(1) and (2). But the March 2026 draft guidance explains that the Article 24(3) reporting duties vary with the kind of support provided.

A steward that only provides non-technical support is not, on that basis alone, required to report actively exploited vulnerabilities or severe incidents. A steward that provides development infrastructure may need to notify severe incidents affecting those systems. A steward that also provides engineering resources may need to notify actively exploited vulnerabilities that it becomes aware of and, where appropriate, inform users.

No.

The CRA speaks about security updates, automatic security updates where applicable, and mechanisms to securely distribute updates. It does not create a separate legal definition of "over-the-air" or "OTA".

ETSI smart-device standards use OTA as a technical term for updates delivered over a network interface. In CRA practice, treat OTA as one implementation pattern for update obligations, not as a separate legal category.

No express OTA mandate appears in the CRA.

What the CRA requires is that vulnerabilities can be addressed through security updates and that the manufacturer provides mechanisms to securely distribute updates. It also requires automatic security updates only where applicable.

That means OTA is one potentially compliant implementation route, rather than a universally mandated delivery channel. This is an inference from the CRA's functional wording.

No.

OTA describes how the update is delivered, typically over a network. Automatic update describes how the update is installed or applied. A product can receive updates OTA but still require user approval before installation. Conversely, the CRA's legal trigger for default enablement is not "OTA" but "automatic security updates" where applicable.

Yes, where automatic security updates are applicable.

Annex I Part I point (2)(c) requires automatic security updates, where applicable, to be enabled as a default setting, with a clear and easy-to-use opt-out mechanism, notification of available updates to users, and the option to temporarily postpone them.

No.

Recital 56 says manufacturers should also provide the possibility to approve the download and installation of security updates as a final step. So even where automatic updates are used, the CRA materials do not point toward an unconditional "silent install only" model.