Even if Linux offers the option, school districts won’t use it. The district itself will be considered the “OS Provider” under this law, if they choose to use a FOSS OS. They have complete and total control over the OS. That makes them liable, rather than leaving that liability with Microsoft or Google.
This sort of regulation violates the first amendment right to speech, the first amendment right to free association, antitrust, and a whole shitload of really good law.
Nothing about it specifically changes if it is Windows or Linux. By the definitions in the bill, they are just as much the “OS Provider” under Windows as they are Linux.
A windows sysadmin does not need to be granted the authority to alter or disable the binary blob that performs the age verification. Microsoft can restrict that access and maintain control over that aspect of the OS. As they will be held liable for allowing it to be disabled, they are not likely to do so.
Canonical cannot compel a similar restriction in its users and sysadmins, due to the FOSS-ness of the software. They cannot be held responsible for what that sysadmin does with their software. The sysadmin, then, becomes the OS Provider.
The text of the bill doesn’t mention anything about being able to “alter or disable the binary blob that performs the age verification”. You are adding a lot of interpretation that is not written, and would have to be decided by courts. The bill only says “person or entity that develops, licenses, or controls the operating system software on a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device.” They don’t define “control” anywhere to mean having anything to do with code or development. It could just mean administering accounts. Yes, it is a poorly written hack-job of a bill, but nothing about it is specifically carving out special treatment for servers or closed source OS’s.
I honestly don’t even think the lawmakers thought this far, after reading the bill myself. I’m cautiously optimistic that this will end up in the courts, hopefully dying there.
Makes me wonder where the language came from, and who is looking to benefit. People in here are saying parents are, and there is a “parent’s rights” contingent - this is convenient red meat for them - but smells like just more anti-competitive bs, the newest attempt at regulatory capture from microslop.
Needless to say I’m disappointed to see this coming out of CA.
Even if Linux offers the option, school districts won’t use it. The district itself will be considered the “OS Provider” under this law, if they choose to use a FOSS OS. They have complete and total control over the OS. That makes them liable, rather than leaving that liability with Microsoft or Google.
This sort of regulation violates the first amendment right to speech, the first amendment right to free association, antitrust, and a whole shitload of really good law.
Nothing about it specifically changes if it is Windows or Linux. By the definitions in the bill, they are just as much the “OS Provider” under Windows as they are Linux.
A windows sysadmin does not need to be granted the authority to alter or disable the binary blob that performs the age verification. Microsoft can restrict that access and maintain control over that aspect of the OS. As they will be held liable for allowing it to be disabled, they are not likely to do so.
Canonical cannot compel a similar restriction in its users and sysadmins, due to the FOSS-ness of the software. They cannot be held responsible for what that sysadmin does with their software. The sysadmin, then, becomes the OS Provider.
The text of the bill doesn’t mention anything about being able to “alter or disable the binary blob that performs the age verification”. You are adding a lot of interpretation that is not written, and would have to be decided by courts. The bill only says “person or entity that develops, licenses, or controls the operating system software on a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device.” They don’t define “control” anywhere to mean having anything to do with code or development. It could just mean administering accounts. Yes, it is a poorly written hack-job of a bill, but nothing about it is specifically carving out special treatment for servers or closed source OS’s.
I honestly don’t even think the lawmakers thought this far, after reading the bill myself. I’m cautiously optimistic that this will end up in the courts, hopefully dying there.
Makes me wonder where the language came from, and who is looking to benefit. People in here are saying parents are, and there is a “parent’s rights” contingent - this is convenient red meat for them - but smells like just more anti-competitive bs, the newest attempt at regulatory capture from microslop.
Needless to say I’m disappointed to see this coming out of CA.
I highly doubt it’s ever going to come into effect. We’ll see injunctions later this year.
makes sense