Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Open source calculator firmware DB48X forbids CA/CO use due to age verification

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 116 posts

Re: Open source calculator firmware DB48X forbids CA/CO use due to age verification

#91

Post by Buttons840 »

kelnos wrote: post #85
Buttons840 wrote: post #76

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…

If I have a license that says "you may use this, you may not use this", then can people use it? Honest question, I don't know how self-contradictory licenses work. Do people get to pick and choose what they want to follow, or does the whole thing become invalid?

Re: Open source calculator firmware DB48X forbids CA/CO use due to age verification

#92

Post by jolmg »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #55
iamnothere wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under no circumstances should we be “mandating” how hobbyists write their software. If you want to scope this to commercial OSes, be my guest. That’s not what was done here.

I'm not sure where the line between "hobby" and "professional" lies when it comes to linux distributions. Many of them are nonprofit but not really hobbyist at this point. Debian sure feels like a professional product to me (I daily drive it). We regulate how a hobbyist constructs and uses a radio. We regulate how a hobbyist constructs a shed in his yard or makes modifications to the electrical wiring in his house. I…

> I'm not sure where the line between "hobby" and "professional" lies when it comes to linux distributions. Many of them are nonprofit but not really hobbyist at this point. Debian sure feels like a professional product to me (I daily drive it).

"Professional" means you're being paid for the work. Debian is free (gratis), contributors are volunteers, and that makes it not professional.

Re: Open source calculator firmware DB48X forbids CA/CO use due to age verification

#93

Post by thayne »

jolmg wrote: post #92
fc417fc802 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure where the line between "hobby" and "professional" lies when it comes to linux distributions. Many of them are nonprofit but not really hobbyist at this point. Debian sure feels like a professional product to me (I daily drive it). We regulate how a hobbyist constructs and uses a radio. We regulate how a hobbyist constructs a shed in his yard or makes modifications to the electrical wiring in his house. I…

> I'm not sure where the line between "hobby" and "professional" lies when it comes to linux distributions. Many of them are nonprofit but not really hobbyist at this point. Debian sure feels like a professional product to me (I daily drive it). "Professional" means you're being paid for the work. Debian is free (gratis), contributors are volunteers, and that makes it not professional.

What about Ubuntu? Its a combination of work by volunteers and paid employees, it is distributed by a commercial company, and said company sells support contracts, but the OS itself is free.

And there are developers who are paid to work on various components of linux from the kernel, to Gnome, does that make it professional?

Is Android not professional, because you don't pay for the OS itself, and it is primarily supported by ad revenue?

Re: Open source calculator firmware DB48X forbids CA/CO use due to age verification

#94

Post by fc417fc802 »

kelnos wrote: post #89
fc417fc802 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you about the proposed implementations. I don't think ID checks are justifiable and I definitely don't think attestation is acceptable as a public policy under any circumstance. I agree with you that it's up to the parent to keep an eye on their children. But I also think that society has a duty to facilitate that. To that end, I think some minimal regulation regarding self reported content ratings for w…

> But I also think that society has a duty to facilitate that. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. The disagreement is around how intrusive the government should be in facilitating that. And some people (myself included) believe that these sorts of age checks and attestation are too intrusive, even if the stated goal is a good one.

Did you perhaps miss the part in the comment you're replying to where I said that I disagree with both attestation and ID checks? I went on to suggest a concrete method of facilitation whereby websites are legally mandated to self report content ratings.

Notice that the context here is a comment farther up the chain decrying the enablement of totalitarian parental control.

Re: Open source calculator firmware DB48X forbids CA/CO use due to age verification

#95

Post by benj111 »

parasense wrote: post #24
drnick1 wrote: post #11

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.

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.

True. I can see 58008 on mine....

Re: Open source calculator firmware DB48X forbids CA/CO use due to age verification

#96

Post by rockskon »

parasense wrote: post #24
drnick1 wrote: post #11

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.

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.

Or, heaven forbid, 8008135. Can't allow that!

Re: Open source calculator firmware DB48X forbids CA/CO use due to age verification

#97

Post by red_admiral »

conartist6 wrote: post #36
croes wrote: post #33

From the other post about this law. > That's likely no big deal for Windows, which already requires you to enter your date of birth during the Microsoft Account setup procedure This seems like an over reaction because of a simple date field

Why would I need a Microsoft account to use Windows.

Microsoft may in future permanently disable the local-account workarounds. Being able to hind behind "legal reasons" just makes it worse.

Re: Open source calculator firmware DB48X forbids CA/CO use due to age verification

#98

Post by shakna »

hotsalad wrote: post #75

If I'm reading the (L)GPL correctly (but I'm not a lawyer), this notice should be completely ignored: Section 7 says: All other non-permissive additional terms are considered “further restrictions” within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that ter…

The LGPL has:

> This version of the GNU Lesser General Public License incorporates the terms and conditions of version 3 of the GNU General Public License, supplemented by the additional permissions listed below.

Which points you over to this in GPL, Sections 7, Additional Terms:

> Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms:

> ...

> f) Requiring indemnification of licensors and authors of that material by anyone who conveys the material (or modified versions of it) with contractual assumptions of liability to the recipient, for any liability that these contractual assumptions directly impose on those licensors and authors.

This is a condition being imposed by a new law (if/when it passes). Its an attempt at indemnification that is compatible with the law. It seems to pass the reasonableness check.

Post reply on HN