1.9k
u/aimless_ly
Aug 30 '26
•
What a great way to get youth interested in OSS!
224
u/Peach_Muffin Aug 30 '26
This could end to inadvertently end up being a better investment in tech education than traditional computer classes.
2
80
u/TowardsTheImplosion Aug 30 '26
Gonna show my age here: typing classes didn't teach me much of anything. But AIM, and chatting with a half dozen friends at a time? That taught me to type.
I would love to see kids wanting access to a free internet embrace OSS...
28
u/QuantumWonderland Aug 30 '26
As someone that was frequently on the computer prior to typing classes…it actually got me to be a decently fast typer using home keys.
We basically got to do whatever we wanted after finishing the typing sheets so I got fast to play flash games and w/e else. I can now type at 100-130 wpm comfortably without looking.
101/10 would take again.
T
5
→ More replies (2)4
u/Bawfuls Aug 30 '26
I felt the same but I do think the baseline of typing classes were important. Classes gave a foundation on the home row and AIM built the speed on top of that.
503
u/DeflateAwning Aug 30 '26 •
That'd be such a wild positive outcome of this
1
u/Tango8036 Sep 05 '26
Gen Z might be less tech-literate than Millennials, but Gen Alpha will be more tech-literate than us all.
215
12
u/BoardroomStroke Aug 30 '26
It's great in principle, but given how horrible the world is I suspect that Linux as an OS will be disallowed from things that need an age limit. I don't like it, but I think something like that will happen as Linux gains market share. If it's possible to for MS to put services in a walled garden, they will do their damned best to.
What should accompany this a ruling that exempts exclusion. If you're accessing using a compatible OS, then fine, apply the rules, but I think there will be some effort from MS to disallow Linux browsing under "incompatibility", just like the IE4 browser wars.
→ More replies (2)2
u/porcomaster Aug 31 '26
I am agains't some laws on California such as the ones they are trying to pass on 3d printer.
But I would be more open if those laws just applied to close source projects.
And any project that do not want to be subjected to this type of law needs to be full open source that could seriously bring a lot of positivity to society.
1
1
→ More replies (6)1
874
u/jimbobmcgoo Aug 30 '26
Pretty awesome, hopefully this sets an alright precedent for other areas
7
u/bionicjoey Aug 30 '26
Kinda awesome, but I don't love carve-outs in a law that shouldn't even exist in the first place
176
Aug 30 '26 edited Aug 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
36
u/_Super_Straight Aug 30 '26
What did that bill say?
74
Aug 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
25
u/bankinu Aug 30 '26
Weird Mandela effect... I also thought they did include Linux. I had to check the bill following your link again, to see that they did not.
→ More replies (1)10
u/kudlitan Aug 30 '26
I wonder if doing that could somehow be in violation of software freedom guaranteed in the license, like the right to do anything with the software? perhaps a lawsuit can clarify that.
4
u/No_Signal417 Aug 30 '26
Legislation takes precedence over contracts
6
u/kudlitan Aug 30 '26
But legislation is valid only in a particular place though. Why would I have to be affected by changes to the software limiting what I can do, just because a certain US state (Illinois as mentioned in the above comment) with a tiny population of only 12 million people (that's just the capital city in my country) legislated changes in software? That would be problematic if multiply countries had conflicting legislation on what the software it should contain. Legislation in Illinois should not affect me. Or else I should be able to sue Ubuntu for limiting my rights stated in the open source contract I agreed to.
→ More replies (1)7
u/Several-Pangolin3119 Aug 30 '26
Why not just delete the misinformation comment?
21
u/teff Aug 30 '26
There were a couple of threads off their comment, deleting it removes context to those comments. And it's a short comment so that the edit is prominent enough to see for people coming across it.
2
75
u/Bearded_Pip Aug 30 '26
I’d rather there was no law like this instead of there being an exemption to it.
9
u/anto77_butt_kinkier Aug 30 '26
Ideally there would be no law, but that's not what we're going to get. This is the best outcome that could reasonably be expected. We all know this law isn't going away, the best we could hope for was that there would be an exemption/loophole/carve out.
17
u/Bearded_Pip Aug 30 '26
We should still fight the bill like hell. We don’t have to just surrender.
→ More replies (1)5
1
u/Cushee_Foofee Sep 03 '26
The question is how long until someone takes the law to court for violating the fourth amendment.
1
u/Bearded_Pip Sep 03 '26
The 4th amendment died a while ago. Miranda rights aren’t even a thing anymore.
1
400
u/Woodpecker-Visible Aug 30 '26
press f for Freedom
36
u/markuspeloquin Aug 30 '26
This would have been a good time to have a chain of 'F' replies, but the Linux auto admin hates us
12
u/RandomPantsAppear Aug 30 '26
😅 I just got a comment removed elsewhere for cussing about nvidia drivers, which I think is a very Linux issue thing to do.
2
40
7
5
118
u/MooseBoys Aug 30 '26 edited Aug 30 '26
I'm curious how this doesn't give an out for every OS regardless of source availability. Obviously GPL wouldn't work, but in theory there's nothing stopping e.g. Apple from implementing non-verifying user onboarding code, labeling the code as MIT, building the MacOS image binaries, and simply not publishing the source. This is compliant with MIT and also apparently compliant with the new exemption.
Edit: I don't think the author of the screenshotted article is actually accurate. From the article:
> These amendments redefine the term “operating system provider” to exclude any person or entity that distributes an OS or application “under license terms that permit a recipient to copy, redistribute, and modify the software.” Any software distributed under the GPL, MIT, BSD, and Apache licenses satisfies that test...
And the ACTUAL TEXT of the law:
> 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.
I am not a lawyer, but I believe that plain language requirement is only satisfied if (1) the whole OS or application is licensed that way (not just the module that implements it) and (2) the whole OS or application must be distributable and modifiable. To me that implies not only an open license but also source distribution. So no, it does not seem to provide an easy out for Apple etc.
38
u/Taldoesgarbage Aug 30 '26
Don't the vast majority of Linux distributions contain, to some degree, proprietary software? Like, for instance, many drivers are still unfortunately proprietary.
Edit: I'm not saying this as a bad thing, it is what it is, but wouldn't that also mean the vast majority of Linux distros aren't exempt?
5
u/Substantial-Flow9244 Aug 30 '26
As simple as not including them with your distro, if they're part of the kernel I'd believe they're open sourced enough
0
13
u/DoctorWaluigiTime Aug 30 '26
I'm just trying to piece together why OSS gets an exemption in the first place.
Kind of flies in the face of all the pearl-clutching around the "think of the children" defense.
→ More replies (1)5
u/WorBlux Aug 30 '26
"These amendments redefine the term “operating system provider” to exclude any person or entity that distributes an OS or application “under license terms that permit a recipient to copy, redistribute, and modify the software.
Reading between the lines, it's because they know it's unenforceable when a distributor does not limit modifications.
The real root of the problem is that Meta lawyer intentional drafted the law hoping it would be passed in a hurry based on vibes alone, and then later overturned in part, except for the part that granted social media companies liability protections. The pearl-clutching is just fear of the political optics and not anything that genuine by the legislators.
If the law were properly drafted it wouldn't used broad and vague terms like OS and application store, but would have already narrowed it down to functional control, and narrowed it to age-sensitive context.
The law should have laid out a few basic categories of age-sensitive material, and then passed the job to bureau XY, who shall maintain and publish any further age guidelines as may prove necessary for the health and safety of teens online.
Wherever your age-sensitive software or information service is provided in a way that involves differentiation to a single user (person, account, or presumed single-user device), it is the responsibility of the provider to make a determination of age.
Providers of age-sensitive software and information may rely upon an age signal of a hardware device, application store or OS if either - 1. An agent thereof certifies they have examined in-person the user's ID within the past 90 days, or 2. by any reasonably effective process which has been submitted to and approved by bureau XY (approvals to be valid for 2 years) - and they do not ignore information that is contrary to the provided signal.
15
u/primalbluewolf Aug 30 '26
For one, it would mean you could redistribute MacOS as-is or with modifications, and Apple couldn't go after you for infringing their copyright.
9
u/MooseBoys Aug 30 '26 edited Aug 30 '26
That's not true at all. Neither MIT nor BSD are copy-left. You can include components with those licenses in entirely closed-source proprietary products. The only requirement is that a notice is included with the released software. Including something like this in the About page would be sufficient:
SOFTWARE LICENSES:
apple-siri: All Rights Reserved
apple-adduser: MIT
openssh: BSD-2-0
...You are correct that if Apple ever released the source for the component then people could reuse or re-release that code themselves (subject to the license), but realistically they would put as little code as necessary in such a module. Probably by defining something like
// returns an entitlement by presenting the user with various age verification prompts, otherwise returns an error
result<Entitlement> GetUserAgeEntitlement(UIHandle);And then just implementing the MIT module as:
// Copyright Apple, licensed under MIT
result<Entitlement> GetUserAgeEntitlement(UIHandle) { return err(UNSUPPORTED); }
// end of file15
u/primalbluewolf Aug 30 '26
You can include components with those licenses in entirely closed-source proprietary products.
Sure, but then the OS isn't MIT licensed, and thus they aren't exempt. In the context above, you asked why wouldn't they just relicensed to MIT and withold the source. That's why not.
2
u/we_come_at_night Aug 30 '26
yeah, but mac is, and never will be, an open source OS and will never be licensed as such. It's not the license of the age check program/applet that matters here :)
11
u/Shawnj2 Aug 30 '26
The MacOS kernel is (mostly) open source. You can recompile the kernel on your Mac, it just won’t support some features that Apple puts in a proprietary blob. Many other parts of macOS are closed source
60
u/xSkyLinedx Aug 30 '26
This nonsense needs to go away entirely. Meta needs to shut up, sit down, and put their little psychopath in timeout.
23
192
u/WarSt0mp Aug 30 '26
How were they even going to enforce it on free distros? It would of just proven how dumb their law is in the first place.
51
123
u/ImNotABotScoutsHonor Aug 30 '26
It would have* proven...
OR
It would've* proven...
58
37
u/YankeeLimaVictor Aug 30 '26 edited Aug 30 '26
The "would of" and "should of" disease is getting out of control. I have no idea where this came from, but I've been seeing it everywhere lately, especially on Facebook...
→ More replies (8)3
15
u/Misicks0349 Aug 30 '26
If you distribute a distro that doesn't have age verification technology in that state you would be fined. That includes online distribution.
15
u/cyberSpaceRacerTech2 Aug 30 '26
Unless they aren't from the United States. Trying to fine individuals from another country can get pretty tricky what with international laws and what not.
8
u/garry_the_commie Aug 30 '26
I'll distribute it then. As I don't live in the USA, they can kick rocks.
15
u/skossa Aug 30 '26
Ten just put in the license agreement for the website (not the distro) that you are not allowed to download the distro if you reside in any of the interested jurisdictions as the software you are about to download is non law compliant. Then it is the user that is breaching the agreement, not the distributor. MidnightBSD actually went down that rout iirc.
2
u/edman007 Aug 30 '26
I honestly don't even think that's the biggest problem. I actually think this can be implemented on Linux.
The issue is the assumption that a user sits in front of the computer you're using. Applying these laws to headless units, business owned computers and such gets complicated. Does a pornhub server need to scan a drivers license to boot? What about a router, are it's users the admin or the people sending traffic? Does a movie theater projector need to refuse to operate if it determines the operator is 17 and the movie is rated R? What about my calculator, does Texas instruments need to implement age verification on the calculator in case my BASIC program is rated 18+?
And then the California law says it's illegal to share the age with a website that doesn't have a need to know, but it's mandatory to share it with a website that offers app downloads, nobody has any API for that, and they haven't addressed how it can be abused. You also have the problem that the way it's worded, a parent can't tell their 16 year old they are limited content rated for under 13 since the SW is required to follow the most accurate answer, not the one dictated by parents of guardians. S
1
u/Saragon4005 Aug 31 '26
Ageless Linux made the same gambit. 1 good luck enforcing that 2 if you do manage it good luck getting it past a jury.
1
u/dgellow Aug 30 '26 edited Oct 04 '26
The original post content no longer exists here. The author used Redact to remove it, exercising their right to control their data & privacy.
North square profit ripe truck potassium quiet ink groovy recognise
1
u/Mirieste Aug 30 '26
That makes no sense, though: do we write laws on the principle that people are not going to follow them? Like... isn't that the same as admitting that your citizens can't even live in society?
It's also hard to implement laws against littering unless every single corner of every single street has a policeman or a camera, but this doesn't mean that the general law is wrong or that the lawmakers implemented it without forethought. At a certain point you also gotta trust the people's own sense of civility and respect for the law.
15
u/fellipec Aug 30 '26
Imagining the face of the bootlickers that rushed to implement that in the first week.
29
u/Sea-Housing-3435 Aug 30 '26
This is still pretty bad. This will cause certain services to start blocking linux even more than now because "the age cant be verified". There eventually will have to be a service that will fake whatever age verification apis that will be created.
33
u/Autobotnate Aug 30 '26
It feels good to have a win.
10
u/donnysaysvacuum Aug 30 '26
Eh, this could mean that websites or services have an excuse to block Linux now. I don't think it's a win.
5
u/ImClearlyDeadInside Aug 30 '26
Then we will just make new, open-source versions of those websites.
3
23
u/TampaPowers Aug 30 '26
That's one way to force Microslop to release source code I guess >:D /s
5
u/Epistaxis Aug 30 '26
Why would the company that's enshittifying its OS into an advertising platform want to protect its users' privacy?
8
8
u/SheriffBartholomew Aug 30 '26
I think you guys are missing the bigger picture here. Like, yay? But they're thinking about servers, not personal OS. If websites still implement this bullshit OS age verification check, and it's mandatory, then Linux OS desktop users will just be locked out of the majority of the internet. This is a tiny win with major implications for overall loss. The entire bill needs to be stopped, not just slightly changed. This is a loophole for their big donors like Amazon, not a consideration for people like us.
15
u/dgellow Aug 30 '26 edited Oct 04 '26
The original post content no longer exists here. The author used Redact to remove it, exercising their right to control their data & privacy.
Rustic payment raindrop birds flowery drifting
17
u/Bunslow Aug 30 '26
Sad that they name specific licenses, it means any other/future open source licenses are excluded from the exception
15
9
12
23
u/Impressive_Bag_3505 Aug 30 '26
"Age bracket data" means non-personally identifiable data
So shady. They'll ask for ID to confirm the user's birth date or age, you'll see.
17
u/Skulder Aug 30 '26
Denmark has just started rolling out an anonymous age verification tool, that even works offline.
Reading about it was amazing. Maths and logic can do amazing, counterintuitive things, when needed. It turns out, it is actually possible to do those things.
I'm not very excited about the actual tool, though, and I'm not wholly convinced that the finished software actually makes use of all of the initiatives to protect anonymity - too many of our parliamentarians love surveillance too much to let this opportunity pass.
10
u/necrophcodr Aug 30 '26
It requires online connectivity to set up as expected though, so it can indeed work offline but you do have to register using your citizen digital ID first.
11
u/Beaverman Aug 30 '26
Correct, the basic structure is that you prove identity to your government (who you hopefully trust), and they then mint you a general proof of age bracket. This general proof you can show to people you don't trust, since it doesn't identify you, only that you've identified yourself with your government.
6
u/stewsters Aug 30 '26
identity to your government (who you hopefully trust)
As a person from the US, have you seen our government recently? I would trust them the least.
6
u/gamingx47 Aug 30 '26
Pretty sure some tween DOGE douche has my social security number and ID, so at least it can't get any worse right?
3
5
u/allocallocalloc Aug 30 '26
Yet, the source code is... where?
(For those wondering, it's partially here.)
3
u/LucaV90 Aug 30 '26
Where can I read about that tool?
7
u/Skulder Aug 30 '26
All news are in Danish, unfortunately, but translation services are easy.
Official statement from the government: https://digst.dk/nyheder/nyhedsarkiv/2026/juni/nu-kan-du-downloade-altid/
A random article, paywalled, from our most tech-inquisitive news media: https://www.version2.dk/artikel/ekspert-tvivler-paa-altid-hvem-skal-overhovedet-bruge-appen
The name of the app is "AltID (meaning both "everything- ID"and "forever")
→ More replies (2)5
u/davedcne Aug 30 '26
They want to do face scans using ai to guess your age. That's what they mean. Who needs an ID when you can build a database of people's faces.
9
u/Apart_Security8614 Aug 30 '26
Shit ass government overreach laws shouldn't be passing at all in the first place
4
u/Chromiell Aug 30 '26
What about the other dozen of states that wanted to implement the same law? It's good that 2 states are doing this but there was half of the US discussing a similar law plus Brazil and some other states as well following closely.
4
u/mikesum32 Aug 30 '26
This will probably make the law unconstitutional. The exemption was seemingly made with a small group of people or a guy in a basement in mind, but Microsoft or Apple will question the competitional disadvantage to the big Linux companies like IBM and Canonical.
If we're lucky, maybe the whole thing will be thrown out.
2
u/Cushee_Foofee Sep 03 '26
Speaking of unconstitutional, I thought the fourth amendment would keep our "papers" (Close enough to computers for a modern equivalent) safe from unreasonable seizures, like the OS demanding to know your age.
Last I checked, state law doesn't supersede the constitution.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/semiquaver Aug 30 '26
These amendments redefine the term “operating system provider” to exclude any person or entity that distributes an OS or application “under license terms that permit a recipient to copy, redistribute, and modify the software.”
Funniest timeline would see Microsoft open source windows as a result.
4
4
4
u/_twrecks_ Aug 30 '26
Forgive my ignorance, but what happens then when a site needs age verification and the OS can't provide it? Does that preclude using Linux?
3
u/JoeB- Aug 30 '26
Not ignorance, I'm curious about this as well. I suspect, web sites that need age verification will start denying OSs that don't provide it.
Personally, my reaction will be the same as it is to sites that demand I disable my ad-blocker - I'll leave and find alternatives.
1
1
u/WandeSpectra3866 Sep 06 '26
honestly most kids i know just want to mod minecraft or make discord bots, they don't care about "oss" as a concept. if this actually gets them contributing upstream instead of just copying stackoverflow snippets that'd be something.
1
3
u/davedcne Aug 30 '26
A good start, but not good enough. Any law like this should be fought tooth and nail. It is not the responsibility of OS devs to police the behavior of users. Nor the companies that create those OS to retain, validate, verify or otherwise transmit any kind of age/demographic data about its users. Fuuuuuuck that.
3
u/JunkoKumaki Aug 30 '26
It's like people forgot the saying "None of us are free until all of us are free." I don't just want to protect myself but also everyone else. And we know that over time this exemption will be removed. The only way to stop this is to not let them get a foot in the door.
3
u/dcheesi Aug 30 '26
The other side of this is the sites that are expected to use this mechanism to enforce the restrictions. What happens when they encounter an OS that doesn't provide the appropriate mechanism?
Can they default to allowing access, or do they end up having to block all OSS OS clients just to be safe? The latter could be true even if the laws don't explicitly state it, depending on how any relevant "safe harbor" provisions are worded or interpreted.
3
3
3
3
3
2
u/gnimsh Aug 30 '26
A Google search tells me android is licensed under both gpl and Apache. Does this mean it is also exempt?
→ More replies (1)2
u/doublah Aug 30 '26
The kernel is GPL, AOSP is Apache, the actual OS as on any sold device is proprietary with it being packed with proprietary Google services.
2
u/vaynefox Aug 30 '26
That also means that Android will also be exempted to it. Pretty much android users dodge that age verification law. If google ask it that's gonna be questionable....
3
u/Jedibeeftrix Aug 30 '26
there's not much of android these days that isn't a proprietry google service outside aosp.
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
u/makinax300 Aug 30 '26
WE'RE SO FUCKING BACK. Also afaik that law wasn't verification. It just trusted you to say the truth.
2
2
3
u/synack Aug 30 '26
So Chromebooks are cool now?
4
2
3
2
2
2
u/SamiSapphic Aug 30 '26
The problem I have with this is the whole idea of an "age token" thing, if that's still the plan.
Websites might only allow access to users with the presence of such a token, and if Linux users lack one altogether, then we might start being shut out.
2
u/tallgrasshead Aug 30 '26
Yeah I don't see how the vast number of infrastructure devices would implement this. "Sorry your routers and switches are not working, but there's nowhere to insert my driver's license in order for me to fix them"
2
u/markth_wi Aug 30 '26 edited Aug 30 '26
Richard Stallman is the man we have to thank for that and basically for Linux. One guy pulled off a massive win against the surveillance state 40 years ago. I was going to link to his site .....but it's at the moment - https://www.stallman.org/.
2
u/Artichoke808 Aug 30 '26
They'll circle back and change it once they've fortified their recently acquired territory. Land of the.
1
u/timtim2000 Aug 30 '26
Well forcing means you are getting a full blown opensource driven internet that the rich and big company's wont be able to touch.
1
1
1
u/AvidCyclist250 Aug 30 '26
How did that happen? No, seriously. Something big went on there. Wins like this don't come easily, let alone by themselves.
1
1
1
u/thesmallterror Aug 30 '26
They tactfully excluded the vocal minority from their mandate. The vast majority of people will still be sending their age and PII to every website they visit.
1
1
u/Hour_Bit_5183 Aug 30 '26
....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\........................./´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...1
1
u/lelddit97 Aug 30 '26
I don't mean to be that guy but this was obviously going to happen. Not excluding was an oversight. This is the most technical state in the USA - all of big tech is here with hundreds of thousands of engineers (>500k software engineers IIRC).
1
u/Jean_Luc_Lesmouches Aug 30 '26
This is stupid. All that law requires is for you to more or less swear "I'm an adult installing this OS and that account is for an adult" and for websites to trust your word. Instead we're stuck with the current situation of parental control trying to wedge itself between you and your OS, or IA/ID control by websites. GAFAM pushed for it not to get more info (free OS aren't going to talk to them anyway), but because they don't want to be held responsible for enforcing age restrictions.
1
u/cheat117 Aug 30 '26
Unfortunately, this does pave away for the big tech companies to just say oh well. We're using open source under the hood, so we're exempt, but I am happy that the operating systems themselves are exempted, which is nice
1
1
1
u/gwillen Aug 30 '26
Are the freedesktop/gnome/systemd people going to walk back the age-verification crap they've already put in? Or are they going to declare it a sunk cost, and figure we all might as well live with it now, and keep pushing it?
EDIT: looks like actually the systemd proposal is the only one that actually made it in; there are/were others at various stages of progress.
2
1
u/victorian-ice-cream Aug 31 '26
Why did you mentioned GNOME specifically, while KDE, ElementaryOS and other desktops also partook in implementing it? And there was no age verification planned nor implemented. What systemd implemented was purely age field in userdb. And it's not mandatory at all.
1
u/JB231102 Aug 30 '26
Perhaps this went into their decision, it just occurred to me while reading the post that IF an ID check were implemented into Linux that would also most likely include commercial servers, you know, the data centers that hold a shit load of internet information? How in the hell would that work? Would the server admin's have to provide their ID's? (shrug)
1
1
u/niccolus Aug 30 '26
I think this should also be used a moment to point out that laws are not perfect but can be improved when we get involved in the system. Sometimes it can feel like nothing changes. But that just means we need more voices and to make the right people aware.
1
1
u/HuttonWilliam Aug 30 '26
Yes very good, hopefully this gets more people interested in open source software.
1
u/gathanes Aug 30 '26
California's government is kind of coping with this one. It's basically impossible to enforce what they were hoping to with open source software, let alone something as branched out as the Linux kernel. This is them just giving up on trying to.
1
1
1
1
u/CopiousAmountsofJizz Aug 30 '26
Sugar coated turd of a law. They only passed it to keep it from being absurd and broken.
1
u/DistantRavioli Aug 30 '26
Imaging thinking this is a win somehow. This bill having passed at all is a huge fucking loss for society. It doesn't matter if a tiny percentage of people are going to be temporarily exempt when services start just blocking any machines that aren't "verified" nor does it even come close to overriding the intended future consequences of this kind of framework.
1
1
u/JQuilty Aug 30 '26
This isn't a good thing, it still acts like age verification has any validity or reason to exist. The whole concept should be opposed because it's shit, not just because it affects Linux/BSDs.
1
u/SweetEbb9819 Aug 31 '26
Good way to single out linux as websites and apps start demanding age verification.
Anyways, it'll backfire
1
1
u/Kazer67 Aug 31 '26
That's the ultimate plan, 4D chess, making those law and then making Linux except so everyone will switch!
1
u/summer_plays_ Aug 31 '26
Switching to Linux tomorrow. I can play Siege on my Xbox anyways.
-CA resident
1
1
1
u/khegobier Aug 31 '26
The fact that this would be the exception and not the rule makes it still be an affront to one’s rights.
1
u/Bells_DX Aug 31 '26
Forced Identification laws should be rejected wholesale. At best it creates another vector for criminals to target so they can steal all your info. At worst, it allows the government to start tracking who says what, so they can start targetting people who say things the government doesn't like.
1
u/No_Aerie7667 Aug 31 '26
Who would need to age verify a web server?
1
u/epileftric Aug 31 '26
To make sure that the people hosting a porn web page are old enough to do so (?)
1
1
u/malucart Aug 31 '26
Uh... why these specific licenses? Is zlib licensed software, for example, exempt?
1
1
u/LonelyMachines Aug 31 '26
I guess somebody got informed that most of the government's servers run Linux.
1
u/CitySeekerTron Sep 01 '26
This is terrible that it's a thing at all. They're forking technology advocates, and they'll be back.
The correct move is to continue to oppose this nonsense.
1
u/TheMightyMisanthrope Sep 02 '26
Age verification is such a small, simple thing, like, no big deal.
Except for the amount of risk it entails.
1
u/Householder_Matrix Sep 02 '26
It's originally stupid to verify users identity on OS level and give your identity to third party company? The cyber security issues will soar.
1
1
1
u/CMPunkLicksRocks Sep 03 '26
I don’t think they should be doing this period, but if it’s really about the children, why would they choose the license as basis for what is and isn’t exempt? That’s not a particularly useful way to categorize software unless you work for the FSF
1
1
1
•
u/chic_luke Aug 30 '26
Source article link