Regardless of the technical details of the law(s), the devs are sensibly refusing to prompt for age on a fricking calculator.
Hopefully Linux distros get on board with this and announce non-CA/CO compliance as policy.
Sounds like a fun thought, but almost certainly untrue: https://www.swissmicros.com/product/dm42
All new PCs sold in the late 1990s handedly beat these specifications. On CPU, storage, RAM, and display. The DM42 firmly remains an embedded system that's just enough for the calculator software and not much more.
If you want to take it back to the early 1980s, you start reaching the claim being true.
- A lot of of corporate contributions comes from SV.
- Linux Foundation is incorporated in CA.
- Linus himself is CA's resident AFAIR.
So there is zero chance of claiming no jurisdiction. The only hope is whoever is enforcing this batshit wouldn't go after what is essentially not an OS for the purpose of the bill, but rather an internal component (it would be like going after a vendor of bolts and nuts for noncompliance of a toaster).
Although, if I'm understanding this correctly, I think all they would have to do to comply is have something during installation that asks for the age category, and write a file that is world readable, but only writable by root that contains that category that applications can read.
If you write a story, there must be a character in it somewhere that reminds kids not to smoke. That's all. It's very easy.
However I think mandated actions should to the greatest extent possible be minimal, privacy preserving, and have an unambiguous goal that is clearly accomplished. This legislation fails in that regard because it mandates sharing personal information with third parties where it could have instead mandated queries that are strictly local to the device.
We regulate how a hobbyist constructs and uses a radio. We regulate how a hobbyist constructs a shed in his yard or makes modifications to the electrical wiring in his house.
I think mandating the implementation of strictly device local filtering based on a standardized HTTP header (or in the case of apps an attached metadata field) would be reasonably non-invasive and of benefit to society (similar to mandating USB C).
"Professional" means you're being paid for the work. Debian is free (gratis), contributors are volunteers, and that makes it not professional.
And there are developers who are paid to work on various components of linux from the kernel, to Gnome, does that make it professional?
Is Android not professional, because you don't pay for the OS itself, and it is primarily supported by ad revenue?
Mint started off as Ubuntu. Same project, with none of the support contracts, no involvement from Canonical needed at the end of the day, etc.
On a practical level, it doesn't make sense to put thousands of dollars per user in liabilities to non-compensated volunteers whatever the case may be with regards to the employment of other contributors.
> it doesn't make sense to put thousands of dollars per user in liabilities to non-compensated volunteers
I agree when it comes to individuals. But it probably does make sense to hold formally recognized groups (such as nonprofits) accountable to various consumer laws. I think the idea odd that Windows, RHEL, Ubuntu, and Debian should all be regulated differently within a single jurisdiction given that they seem to me largely equivalent in purpose.
The way this currently exists is basically unenfoceable because the critical terms are not even defined. It's not even ultimately intelligible, which is a prerequisite to enforcing, or even being able to tell where it does and does not apply, and whether some covered entity is or is not in compliance.
Feel free to elaborate. As it stands that's nothing more than name calling.
I wasn't speaking to the current CA or CO proposed implementations (which I don't support as it happens). I responded specifically to your statement:
> It's not that it's difficult, it's that it's arbitrary and a form of commanded speech or action.
My response being that I think it's acceptable for the regulator to require action under certain limited circumstances.