Carl Richell

The amended CO SB51 bill with a strong exemption for open source distros and apps was passed in the house committee.

THIS ARTICLE 30 DOES NOT APPLY TO:

AN OPERATING SYSTEM PROVIDER OR DEVELOPER THAT DISTRIBUTES AN OPERATING SYSTEM OR APPLICATION UNDER LICENSE TERMS THAT PERMIT A RECIPIENT TO COPY, REDISTRIBUTE, AND MODIFY THE SOFTWARE WITHOUT RESTRICTION FROM THE PROVIDER OR DEVELOPER, INCLUDING ANY TECHNICAL OR CONTRACTUAL RESTRICTIONS ON INSTALLING ALL MODIFIED VERSIONS.

Apr 24 at 3:58pmWeb
Show threadCarl RichellApr 24
There are more steps but we're on our way to protecting the open source community, at least in CO.
Show threadClaudioMApr 24
@carlrichell Citation missing, so here is the amendment: https://legiscan.com/CO/amendment/SB051/id/296180
Show threadBill ZaumenApr 24
@carlrichell Thanks, Carl! BTW (and this has to be run past a lawyer), is there still a problem with software distributed under a GPL, which requires that software that uses GPL-licensed code be open source as well? It depends on how broadly the word "restriction" is taken.
Show threadCarl RichellApr 24
@bzdev no, the os vendor or developer can't restrict the users ability to install modified versions of the software.
Show threadCarl RichellApr 25
@bzdev ah, I see where you're coming from regarding redistribution. I think the conditions the GPL requires are alright in this context and there's little to be concerned about.
Show threadmirabilos🐈‍⬛Apr 25

@carlrichell the systemd et al. people will be angry now that they reduced their cred for nothing.

Oh wait.

Show threadEric SchultzApr 26
@carlrichell while I appreciate this, it's not enough to only give ourselves freedom. No one should be a victim of these laws.
Show threadPseudoSpockApr 27

@wwahammy @carlrichell

Mmm, I dunno. They have the same out you and I do... Open Source operating systems. Why help Apple and Microsoft by letting them off the hook? They have their own budget and lawyers for fighting it if they want to.

Show threadEric SchultzApr 27
@PseudoSpock @carlrichell I'm not worried about companies, I know they don't care. If these types of laws go into effect, even with a FOSS exemption, then conservative states are going to use them to ban kids access to information on the LGBTQ community, reproductive rights and a host of other things. Those kids wouldn't have a say on whether they're using FOSS or not.
Show threadEric SchultzApr 27

@PseudoSpock @carlrichell and while I think it exceedingly unlikely, they could ban kids access to FOSS because it doesn't enforce the bans.

The problem is the same, this just moves it around to somewhere else.

Show threadGeraldo NascimentoApr 26
@carlrichell Congratulations on taming Leviathan...
Show threadRiverApr 26
@carlrichell hmm, so under this law, would the GPL and other viral licenses be considered open source? After all, it _does_ place restrictions on modification (namely, if you modify and publish the binary output, you also have to publish the modified source code).
Show threadCarl RichellApr 26
@riverpunk it's possible so we've adjusted the language for clarity.