- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
AB-1043 “Age verification signals: software applications and online services.”
Text https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1043
Other info https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1043
California AB 1043 signed. Mandatory os-level, device-level, app store, and even developer-required age verification for all computing devices.
Edit: altered title from “ID check” to “Age Verification check”
According to (f), the user is officially the developer of a FOSS application:
In some cases (such as the Arch User Repository or the Gentoo distribution), the developer does not even give the user an application but merely source code. The user creates the application.
There is no mention of binaries in either f or c. Possession of binaries does not constitute ownership of an application, ownership of software means holding the copyrights.
But even if we abuse this definition we simply make whoever installs the application liable. In a lot of cases that would be a parent. It could also be the user since the law doesn’t state they can’t be the same person.
The word ‘application’ means the binary. The source code is not the application.
That’s your opinion. It’s wrong. There even are applications that do not have binaries at all. There is no reason to believe the legislators would not want them covered by this law, it certainly does not say so.
It also does not make a difference, owner of the copyright of a binary is the owner of the copyright of the source code. Compiling does not remove the copyright of the source code author as the binary is clearly derived from the source code. The person who compiles the source code does not even get any copyright since it’s not a creative process.
You are not helping FOSS by trying to portray the law as FOSS friendly when it isn’t. Unfortunately the law rarely is FOSS friendly if not due to hostility due to indifference/ignorance on the part of the legislators.
That’s your opinion. It’s wrong.
Only facts can be right or wrong.
Anyway, I know there are applications that don’t have binaries, but most do. I am not a lawyer, but if I’m not mistaken, source code is under U.S. law protected by the first amendment while binaries are not.
Also, it doesn’t matter who owns the copyright. The laws specifies “a person that owns, maintains, or controls an application”.
I am not saying that the law is FOSS friendly. I am saying that the law does not cover all FOSS software despite it being the clear intend of the lawmakers to cover all software. In such cases it will have to be decided by courts (I believe courts still have this function for state laws), whether it also applies to FOSS software.
What I am saying is that the lawmakers clearly do not understand the topic they are trying to regulate.
Opinions (such as that the Earth is flat) can obviously be wrong. Facts cannot. Look up the definition of fact.
You admit applications are not necessarily binary, the law does not mention binary or source code or anything like that where it defines applications. You are just grasping at straws to justify an indefensible position, that whoever possesses a binary is it’s owner.
Which is obviously untrue. Ownership of software means ownership of it’s copyright. It’s been made very clear in the last decades that you (legally) don’t even own software that you pay for. You own a license to use the software.
You cannot argue, in good faith at least, that this is what is intended by the law. First it would be spelled out and secondly it would mean that for all applications, not just FOSS ones, the people paying the fines would be the users, $2500 for each app they install that’s in violation. Which is obviously not what’s intended.
Unfortunately it does since it does not discriminate. If anybody that can be effectively prosecuted (i.e. US/California resident) takes your advice and takes it to court, he is getting fucked.
No shit. That does not mean FOSS software is not affected. You also do not understand the topic or choose to not understand it because it’s spells trouble for FOSS. But pretending everything is ok does not make it so. FOSS projects either need to implement it or make sure they isolate themselves from US/California jurisdiction.
So then also copyleft is exempt?
Copyleft is not a legal term. It’s a term for (foss) licenses that require users to keep the same terms when redistributing software. Such licenses do not actually transfer copyright. I fail to see how this would exempt foss developers.
AUR works with binaries too, it creates an arch compatible package but that can be from source or massaging an existing package designed for a different distro (like .deb).
Thanks. I didn’t know that.