111–116 of 116 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ultimately, it does not matter. This legal notice is just theater, as anyone from CA or CO can still download, build and use the program. Linux distributions will just do the same.
You might say the bills themselves are theater. Respond to theater with theater.
IANAL, but the whole thing feels quite problematic. Should we interpret the prohibition as a licensing condition "a resident using our IP is violating the contract" or as an informative note "we are not compliant and we are not ever going to be compliant so a resident using the IP is violating local laws"? I'd expect the intent to be the latter, but would it hold in front of a judge? If the notice is a licensing cond…
> GPLv3 clearly has no provisions to introduce arbitrary prohibitions into the license without losing compatibility. It's not even just that. The license expressly forbids adding other conditions and restrictions, and says that people who receive software, licensed under the GPL, with added conditions ore restrictions, can just remove those restrictions. If the author really wants to add a restriction like this, they…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The copyright holder isn't bound by their own license though. Although, if there are many contributors to the project, there may not be a clear copyright holder.
Of course, the copyright holder can license as they wish. But the quoted terms of the GPL are in the license that the author is distributing with the software, so we can also follow the terms of the GPL and remove the extra restriction they just added. The author is trying to do contradictory things: add extra restrictions, but release under the terms of a license that allow us to remove those extra restrictions. If…
I clarified in a recently updated version of the text, and I refer the readers to this discussion. https://github.com/c3d/db48x/blob/dev/LEGAL-NOTICE.md
Clickbait title, the legal notice explicitly states that an open source project cannot and will not implement age verification.
There is no carve out in the law for open source. I don’t think it matters for this calculator’s firmware, because there’s no covered App Store, but it certainly would for most Linux distributions.
> Colorado residents may no longer use DB48x after Jan 1st, 2028. This law hasn't even passed
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Certainly. However, The developer seems to want to avoid the $2,500 per violation by any child who accesses the calculator, and might see a dick pic... because that calculator firmware does indeed allow for image viewing, and application development. It's more powerful than your PC back in the late 1990s.
I had a program on my overclocked TI-83 in 1998 that displayed a single pseudo-greyscale dithered photograph of a topless Pamela Anderson, which has left me hopelessly psychologically scarred. Ban this filth