RE: https://social.treehouse.systems/@wwahammy/116264430375745593

I want everyone who says "this is the law, distros need to comply" I want you to explain a plausible set of circumstances to lead to the following:

* That the AG of California will sue a random Linux distro which has effectively no money
* Prove who the OS distributor actually is (is it the committers? Committers of what part? Their bank account with $12 in it?)
* Prove by preponderance of the evidence how many children used the OS in order to set the fines
* get a judge and jury to think this isn't a massive waste of their time
* That it isn't just a violation of the law but is a "negligent" or "intentional" violation
* all the while, the OS maker and everyone else having effectively zero knowledge of who uses it since there's no continuing relationship with users.

How does all of this happen?

@wwahammy none of this is going to happen, not likely. Currently main Linux distros are graciously allowed to boot by Microsoft letting them use Microsoft-signed binary for the Secure Boot process. California AG could just facilitate uhm "cease of continuation" of this practice.
@isagalaev why would the California AG do that? Seems like a waste of resources.
@wwahammy can't say. What I mean there's a simple technical way to coerce distros rather than a complicated legal one.
@isagalaev it's not a non-zero risk and there's of course lots of issues with Microsoft controlling the SecureBoot crap. I don't think it's a major risk but really who knows?
@isagalaev @wwahammy Every PC out there has the option to disable secure boot, and BIOSs are very rarely updated. And even if California/the US or whoever passed a law to mandate always on secure boot, why would the mostly chinese and taiwainese motherboard manufacturers oblige ?
Ofc we need to fight back against all of this shit, but the PC should remain "free" for a while longer.