Colorado, Illinois, and New York could join the list if their proposed age verification bills pass.

MidnightBSD, a FreeBSD-based desktop operating system, has quietly updated its README to reflect a new geographic restriction. The project has added a clause that bars residents of any country, state, or territory with OS-level age verification mandates from using MidnightBSD

  • Archr@lemmy.worldEnglish
    61·
    3 hours ago

    exasperated sigh I don’t want to get too deep in it with people again. Here is a link to the California law and some clarifications. (I cannot speak for the Brazilian law as I am not from Brazil)

    https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1043

    • The law does not require ID verifications it only required that a parent indicate the age of their child when setting up their account.
    • The law’s definition for operating system provider includes “general purpose computing device” so no, your toaster, microwave, and fridge are not included. (please remember that legal definitions do not always match how we would use the term in everyday conversation)
    • An “accessible interface” is not well defined here. But it could be as simple as a system call rather than a REST API call. Similar to open file or malloc. (this means no centralized government server storing the data)

    I have said this in other posts, but the linux community sticking their heads in the sand and pretending these states don’t exist just leave MS, Google, and Apple to decide how this is implemented. I am glad some distro maintainers are taking this seriously and looking at what is the minimum they would need to implement to comply with the law.

    To be clear I do not support this law. The definitions are written so loosely that it leaves much of it up to interpretation. It is clear that they did not meet with anyone in the industry before voting.

    • M0oP0o@mander.xyzEnglish
      5·
      3 hours ago

      The law’s definition for operating system provider includes “general purpose computing device” so no, your toaster, microwave, and fridge are not included. (please remember that legal definitions do not always match how we would use the term in everyday conversation)

      That does mean (by legal definitions in California) your toaster, microwave and fridge.

      And really the choice of “pulling” support from areas with issue laws is the way, this law is not enforceable as written and is likely the easiest way for any OS to avoid legal issues. Just putting in a line that the OS is not supported in the state will not stop the OS being used but will stop legal issues from said state.

      • TrippinMallard@lemmy.mlEnglish
        2·
        2 hours ago

        People put doom on microwaves, I’d call that general purpose computing.

        After reading that… it only pertains to commercially licensed?

        • M0oP0o@mander.xyzEnglish
          2·
          2 hours ago

          Well its stupid broad, but I don’t think they can even pretend to do things to non commercial products (as in not a product). I think this will just end up like the cancer warnings, companies will just put the label on everything.

      • Archr@lemmy.worldEnglish
        11·
        2 hours ago

        I’m sorry I am really not seeing what you are referencing from your link. This appears to be a link to the state administration manual which deals with how departments in the state of California operate.

        This does not appear to be a law especially when you look at the procedure for revising the SAM.

        Responsibility for updating SAM content is assigned to authoring state departments

        Ie. Not assembly members.

        Edit: sorry I didn’t respond to your second point. From the Cali law:

        1798.503(b) An operating system provider or a covered application store that makes a good faith effort to comply with this title, taking into consideration available technology and any reasonable technical limitations or outages, shall not be liable for an erroneous signal indicating a user’s age range or any conduct by a developer that receives a signal indicating a user’s age range.

        • M0oP0o@mander.xyzEnglish
          1·
          2 hours ago

          1798.503(b) An operating system provider or a covered application store that makes a good faith effort to comply with this title, taking into consideration available technology and any reasonable technical limitations or outages, shall not be liable for an erroneous signal indicating a user’s age range or any conduct by a developer that receives a signal indicating a user’s age range.

          OR instead of having to collect that info at all you just put “OS not for cali” on the user agreement and just not deal with the risk.

          • Archr@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            34 minutes ago

            You are right. I have no additional response to this that would not make me sound like an asshole.