@artemis I don't know why.

And I'd say "why are people complying at all?".

@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.

@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.

@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

@JdeBP @neal @feonixrift @dalias @wwahammy @artemis Gavin Newsom's signing letter requested amendments for other cases prior to the law taking effect. I see no reason to give up on an exemption for floss being there before 2027.

https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/AB-1043-Signing-Message.pdf

@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

@JdeBP @soller @neal @feonixrift @wwahammy @artemis What is your goal in saying that? What result do you expect or want it to have? How do you expect anything to be better from you saying that, versus if you had shut up and said nothing at all?

If you don't have good answers to those questions you should step back and leave this to people who do have good intents.