Now do FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD... =p
The law just says open source OS’ don’t count. It does not mention Linux by name - nor does it specify which licenses.
California lawmakers unanimously pass Linux exemption from age-verification law
61–70 of 409 posts
Re: California lawmakers unanimously pass Linux exemption from age-verification law
#62So is anyone going to revert the commits that jumped the gun on this?
E.g. systemd's birthdate field https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/40954
Re: California lawmakers unanimously pass Linux exemption from age-verification law
#63My gut reaction to this is that there is something seriously wrong if special clauses are required. Why should open source get special treatment, to me that just highlights that the law is utterly ridiculous.
Re: California lawmakers unanimously pass Linux exemption from age-verification law
#64Laws need to be managed like software: There should be a process for testing, user feedback, quick patches for bugs or conflicts, and regular updates to fix issues. If you think about it, both laws and software are called "code". The problem is our legal system is still based on the waterfall method. Lawmakers try to plan for everything, laws meant to solve one problem face feature creep and create a thousand others,…
> The problem is our legal system is still based on the waterfall method.
It's not? It has been "agile" for centuries. It is constantly patched as someone wants to address some issue. It's rather rare for a completely new law to be written.
> Lawmakers try to plan for everything
It's not? They see one bug, e.g. children being exploited, now they tried it with a patch that is horribly broken and doesn't really work, so they patched it again, to remediate one issue, while they try to figure out more patches.
Re: California lawmakers unanimously pass Linux exemption from age-verification law
#65Linux? Or also BSD, ReactOS, hobby OS #24562 etc... ?
According to the article: "it's any OS or application “under license terms that permit a recipient to copy, redistribute, and modify the software.”"
The article then explicitly cite "Debian, Fedora, Ubuntu, Arch, and the BSD family".
There is also another exclusion for libraries and software from a packages managers like apt and pacman.
So from my understanding ReactOS, hobby OS but also CP/M, FreeDOS, Haiku or Collapse OS...
Re: California lawmakers unanimously pass Linux exemption from age-verification law
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
A quick search suggests that 3D-printed guns being used in crime is an actual, for-real, and growing problem. I take it that you wouldn't be OK with somebody building a uranium enrichment facility in their backyard for their hobby reactor. So there is a line to be drawn on where people's freedom to tinker ends; it's just a question of where you draw it. Personally, I think given there is an actual documented, non-iso…
My position on anything is "REGULATION BAD" when it's against individuals and non commercial/open source projects, "REGULATION GOOD" for massive corporations, and "REGULATION MAYBE GOOD NEEDS NUANCED DEBATE" for anything in between.
Individuals can do a lot of bad stuff too? "Mark Zuckerberg" is still an individual.
Re: California lawmakers unanimously pass Linux exemption from age-verification law
#67So is anyone going to revert the commits that jumped the gun on this? E.g. systemd's birthdate field https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/40954
The PR mentions not just California but other states and countries, so I dont think California's exemption alone changes the situation
Re: California lawmakers unanimously pass Linux exemption from age-verification law
#68Laws need to be managed like software: There should be a process for testing, user feedback, quick patches for bugs or conflicts, and regular updates to fix issues. If you think about it, both laws and software are called "code". The problem is our legal system is still based on the waterfall method. Lawmakers try to plan for everything, laws meant to solve one problem face feature creep and create a thousand others,…
Software development is slower in larger, more political organisations (hello Change Advisory Boards) and larger/older/sprawling codebases.
Most governments are huge, highly political, slow moving organisations. It seems to just come with the territory: slower rollout of changes, longer periods to observe the changes in the wild (throw in a few years to see how the law plays in legal cases/challenges), and suddenly you have fewer iterations to get it right.
Re: California lawmakers unanimously pass Linux exemption from age-verification law
#69> (2) “Operating system provider” does not mean a person or entity that distributes an operating system or application under license terms that permit a recipient to copy, redistribute, and modify the software. Where does MacOS and iOS fit then? The core of both those operating systems (darwin) is open source (APSL licensed).
MacOS isn't Darwin and comes under terms that do not fit rhe criteria of the exception. Apple actually did go to some lengths in the past to ensure that all layers of MacOS contained bits that they could claim restrictive licenses on.
A project like PureDarwin, however, can be freely distributed because it omits Apple's proprietary parts.
Re: California lawmakers unanimously pass Linux exemption from age-verification law
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Good job, California lawmakers! Is this serious or sarcasm? They passed a horrible law, now its an internally contradictory horrible law because apparently it isn't important enough to consistently enforce. So, you know. Why legislate it? There isn't much of an angle here that reflects well on Californian lawmakers, they're still supporting this authoritarian trend of de-anonymisation and rolling back free communic…
> now its an internally contradictory horrible law because apparently it isn't important enough to consistently enforce Law is not an abstract code, but an incremental sometimes futile approach to shape society. They only want a way to hold big corporations accountable to exploiting children. They don't actually intend the effects on the consumer, so they tried to fix on easily changeable effect: "Don't worsen the pr…
So what makes kid users on linux so special that they don't need nanny state protection? Are the Californian legislators just throwing them to the wolves? Or are the protections being put in place here not actually important?
Seriously, what is the message here supposed to be about the kids using linux? And why are they so different from kids using Windows or Mac? Are there other safety features we can exempt kid linux users from?