@wwahammy @soller

I gave this some thought at the start of March. There are a number of blind alleys.

The Microsoft Store is obviously a direct target here, but Microsoft Windows is a multi-user operating system; so the operating system having multiple local user accounts is not a way to structure an exemption.

The likes of Debian, Ubuntu, RedHat, FreeBSD, et al. use accountless access to repositories, whereas one has to use a Google Account with Google Play and a Microsoft Account with the Microsoft Store. But F-Droid is seemingly accountless too so that sort of exemption would let it off the hook.

Maybe one could get somewhere with tweaking the definition of a 'covered user' to make it specific to operating systems where Microsoft/Google/AppleID/whatever accounts functionally *are* the operating system user accounts.

Several ways still to draft that badly, though.

@neal @feonixrift @dalias @artemis
#ColoradoLaw #AgeVerification #USLaw

@wwahammy

Without a doubt if people are now paying attention and lobbying. The immediate problem is the chance that @soller mentioned of them happening before the provisions of the #California Act take effect on 2027-01-01. It's slim to none.

The slightly further away problem is finding how to express the difference in legal terms. It's actually quite hard to come up with something that doesn't as a side-effect let #FDroid off the hook. They'll want to keep F-Droid in the 'covered' camp, because it's exactly the sort of smart 'phone thing that they *thought* that they were covering, so the law cannot just exempt a 'store' solely on the grounds that it distributes #FreeSoftware.

Colorado came up with an addition to the common base text that grants exemptions for intra-business use. But that's an exemption for developers, not for operating system makers, based upon application purpose; so isn't much use to follow.

@neal @feonixrift @dalias @artemis
#USLaw #ColoradoLaw

@dalias

Actually, it doesn't.

But the legislative record does. The California legislature has detailed accounts of what was brought up, pro and con, in committee.

It shows that the only 'free' things that the objectors thought about, the only things recorded as formal objections by concerned parties, were gratis applications on Microsoft/Google/Apple App Stores, and a supposed effect on their development costs.

No-one mentioned the #Unix model of user accounts or the BSD/Linux-based/Illumos-based operating system models of application packaging.

That said, it really was up to someone like IBM to spot this and lobby at the very least for #RedHat and RPMs to be taken into consideration in the definitions of 'covered application store' and whatnot.

@soller @neal @feonixrift @wwahammy @artemis
#CaliforniaLaw #USLaw #AgeVerification

@soller

You should. Because the problem will be a lot of #California legislators having to be convinced that what they just did, not even in a prior legislative session, was wrong enough for a political U-turn; and then come up with a way of fixing this so that it does not broadly encompass pretty much any operating system with a ports/packages system for applications, *without* letting the targets that they *thought* that they were hitting (given the records of the passage through committee stages) off the hook; and *then* fight the organized lobby that clearly is behind this almost exactly the same bill text appearing in Colorado, Illinois, and New York as well, reacting with a #FreeSoftware-people-want-to-harm-children campaign.

2027-01-01 is simply too near a deadline for all that to happen before. Colorado, Illinois, and New York have a chance, as it's still Bills there; but it's too late in practical terms for California.

@neal @feonixrift @dalias @wwahammy @artemis
#USLaw

@soller

It's good that someone is doing that. IBM seriously dropped the ball when it came to lobbying about this, given how it affects #RedHat. No-one even brought up the implications for #Unix-like operating systems in #California.

You're not the first person to talk about amending the California Bill. It's an Act now, not a Bill, though. It's nigh on impossible to supersede it before 2027-01-01.

The politics, as well as the physical realities of how long it takes to enact legislation, mean that there just isn't the time, even if the will could be drummed up.

The current Act took 8 months to pass, itself, and not only is there no-one in California really lobbying to fix this, there's also the political problem of seeming to want to carve a massive exemption in a law that only months ago passed through every stage in the legislature with zero 'no' votes.

https://mastodonapp.uk/@JdeBP/116175882841550437

@neal @feonixrift @dalias @wwahammy @artemis
#CaliforniaLaw #USLaw #FreeSoftware #AgeVerification

@chris

I do not appreciate M Carney's approach on a lot of things. However, in this case there's nothing he can do to force the #USA to follow its own #law.

Mrs. Warner has, under #USLaw, every visa, permit, card, and right to be there, with her daughter and husband. She has been illegally detained by #ICE, #CBP, #DHS. The #Dilley detention is operated by #CoreCivic.

She has been given the opportunity to return to Canada with her daughter. She & her husband are fighting the detention.

Update. 24 US states have now filed their own lawsuit to restore the #EPA endangerment finding.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/mar/19/us-states-trump-climate-crisis-endangerment-finding

#Climate #DefendResearch #Environment #Takedowns #Trump #TrumpVResearch #USLaw #USPol #USPolitics

@navi @domi @ska

I've just had a very brief glance at the pull request. I even predicted the chosen implementation mechanism of JSON User Records.

This must make me a #systemd influencer. (-:

https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/40954

#AgeVerification #Unix #USLaw #GDPR