Search every question across CRA sub-FAQs

No.

The Article 3(14) definition is limited to a legal person.

No.

Steward status is narrower. The legal person must systematically provide support on a sustained basis, the software must be intended for commercial activities, and the legal person must ensure the software's viability.

The CRA gives broad examples.

Recital 19 says that sustained support may include hosting and managing software-development collaboration platforms, hosting source code or software, governing or managing free and open-source software products, and steering their development.

Yes.

The March 2026 draft guidance says this assessment is specific to each FOSS product. A legal person may be the manufacturer for a specific FOSS that it places on the market, while being the steward for another specific FOSS that it publishes without placing on the market. The same split can also arise between a monetised version and a free or community version of related software.

They have a lighter, tailored regime under Article 24.

Stewards must put in place and document, in a verifiable manner, a cybersecurity policy that fosters secure development, effective vulnerability handling, voluntary reporting of vulnerabilities, and sharing of vulnerability information within the open-source community. They must also cooperate with market-surveillance authorities and, on a reasoned request, provide the documented policy to the authority.

Yes, but only to the limited extent set out in Article 24(3).

Article 14(1) applies to stewards only to the extent that they are involved in development of the products. Article 14(3) and 14(8) apply only to the extent that severe incidents affect network and information systems provided by the steward for the development of those products.

No.

Recital 19 makes clear that open-source software stewards should not be permitted to affix the CE marking to the products whose development they support.

Yes.

The market-surveillance authorities designated under Article 52 are also responsible for activities relating to steward obligations under Article 24. If a steward does not comply, the authority must require appropriate corrective action.

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.

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.