Neal Gompa (ニール・ゴンパ) Mar 21

@feonixrift @dalias @wwahammy @artemis It's not complying "in advance". The California thing is *law* now. Sure, other jurisdictions are in progress, but the time between now and the next Linux distribution releases before the January 1, 2027 date isn't that long.

Everyone in the different community spaces that *do the work* are scrambling because being out of compliance is ludicrously expensive and there's not much time to be prepared. Even so, there *are* public discussions with patch review.

Show threadNeal Gompa (ニール・ゴンパ) Mar 21
@feonixrift @dalias @wwahammy @artemis And as @soller has pointed out in multiple locations, unlike most doctrines, this one is fairly simple and written in plain language. It's pretty understandable what is required. We are also anticipating expansion of age verification laws in other jurisdictions (UK, Australia, France, Canada, etc.). But nobody is implementing anything that isn't law right now. And an implementation that exists also influences what laws can ask for in the future too.
Show threadJeremy Soller 🦀Mar 21

@neal @feonixrift @dalias @wwahammy @artemis I stated on the xdg mailing list that amendments are expected. We are working with Colorado legislators on language that would exclude effectively all open source operating systems and all embedded/server operating systems. This has a chance of making it to the California bill before it is effective.

I had a chance to demand polkit access controls be implemented on the accountsservice change but the systemd userdb change did not get that implemented.

Show threadJdeBPMar 21

@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

Show threadCassandrichMar 21
@JdeBP @soller @neal @feonixrift @wwahammy @artemis A law that passes with zero no votes should automatically be invalid. It means nobody actually thought about what it says.
Show threadben

@dalias that… doesn’t follow at all.

What about people who thought about what it said, agreed, and voted yes?

@JdeBP @soller @neal @feonixrift @wwahammy @artemis

Mar 21 at 2:59pmWeb