Eric Schultz3d 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 threadPavel Machek2d ago
@wwahammy There should be some kind of free speech argument saying that you can't add restrictions for free software developers like this. (After all.... source code is very close to speech.)
Show threadcalcifer 

@pavel @wwahammy this is fairly well-trodden territory. They can’t force open-source devs to implement anything, really.

But they CAN regulate what can be SOLD. So the “right” way for RH/Canonical/whoever to comply would be to only ship the required capabilities in Enterprise Desktop versions of their OS. (Arguably they don’t sell an OS at all, but that would be hard to convince a jury of, I bet.)

Then fight any attempt to enforce more than that.

Mar 22 at 2:05amWeb
Show threadPavel Machek2d ago
@calcifer @wwahammy I'm not US expert, and some coverage suggested this applied to "Johny developer places ISO images for download" situation. It is well possible coverage should have been more careful.
Show threadEric Schultz2d ago

@pavel @calcifer IANAL, but as I read the law, it regulates "operating system providers" which specifically includes any person or entity who develops an operating system for a general-computing device.

Sure sounds like it applies to any developer.

Show threadcalcifer 1d ago
@wwahammy @pavel they clearly *intend* that coverage yes. But this sort of shenanigan has been tried before and has not stood up to challenges, precisely because it’s a free speech issue. It’s likely they made the law as broad as possible knowing full well the courts would limit it.
Show threadPavel Machek1d ago
@calcifer @wwahammy For the record, creating law that goes against constitution .... dunno, is that even legal? Sounds very wrong to me.
Show threadcalcifer 1d ago

@pavel @wwahammy it is wrong, but it’s also how the system is designed so it’s not novel or surprising. Legislatures pass laws that conflict with higher laws (including the constitution) all the time. The judiciary acts as a check on that power.

Legislatures almost always have the ability to ask the judiciary to weigh in on proposed law, but they’re not required to do so.

Yes this whole thing is problematic, but also unlikely to change

Show threadcalcifer 1d ago
@pavel @wwahammy for an example, legislatures have spent decades trying different variations on anti-abortion laws to test the boundaries of Roe v Wade — and they did this long before the conservative court that overturned such precedent was in power.