Eric Schultz4d ago

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?

Show threadSimon Zerafa (Status:   ðŸ˜Š)4d ago

@wwahammy

They will go after a larger distro or system vendor with a reputation and a modest bank balance first.

System 76 or similar so they can scare everyone else into following along with their stupid legislation.

The better short term option is to ban everyone in California (and other jurisdictions with such stupid laws) from using the OS. No sales, supply and no ongoing support. Explain clearly why.

Then go for malicious compliance in the way that Ageless Linux is presenting.

Show threadEric Schultz4d ago

@simonzerafa I would be beyond shocked if they targeted any one other than Valve. There's no gain.

But I agree on the malicious compliance plan.

Show threadSimon Zerafa (Status:   ðŸ˜Š)

@wwahammy

Valve have already indicated they will fight. Would they take on that challenge given they have deep pockets?

Small and medium-sized first without lots of resources to fight back 😕

Mar 21 at 9:37pmWeb
Show threadEric Schultz4d ago
@simonzerafa why would the California AG bother suing the small ones though? It's a lot of work for no gain.