this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2026
571 points (97.2% liked)
Technology
82131 readers
3839 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You keep saying that, but nothing about it is carved out specifically one way or the other for FOSS. As it is worded, any network sysadmin is considered the "OS Provider" exactly the same under Windows or Linux as they "control the operating system software on a computer". They don't "develop" or "license" the software in either case, windows or Linux. They control the OS the same amount under either windows or Linux.
Maybe it could be argued they are more likely to choose windows since the people developing and licensing the software are a big corporation and is therefore more likely to be compliant? But it isn't like Canonical and RedHat are just some guy in a basement - these are commercial entities developing and licensing software just like Microsoft.
I agree the definitions in this bill are absolutely insane - the idea that the developer, licensor, and administrator of a computer's OS would ever be the same person is astronomically unlikely. Maybe they mean something different by "control", but it isn't defined so that makes it up to the courts to decide with no direction.
That is false. The Windows sysadmin does not fully control the binary blobs of the OS, including (presumably) the blob that performs this age verification process. If Microsoft is going to be held responsible should that feature be absent, Microsoft is not going to allow that feature to be disabled, unless responsibility for compliance transfers to another "OS Provider". This restriction is well within Microsoft's power and control: they do not grant full and total control of the OS to the end user.
The age-signaling apparatus will be well within the the Linux sysadmin's control. This is simply the nature of FOSS. The Linux sysadmin can't be stripped of that control: they control the source code to the OS. They always have the power to determine what functions their OS will and will not perform. Their decision to use such an operating system qualifies them as a "developer" under this law.
Canonical produces a version of Ubuntu with the age signalling apparatus. A California sysadmin installs it on a child's computer and removes or bypasses the signalling apparatus. Is Canonical still the OS Provider?
What if he doesn't disable it, but a bug in the age verification app causes it to fail. Canonical puts out a bug fix in an update, but the sysadmin's update policies block that update. Canonical can't force an update in the way that Microsoft can. It is the sysadmin's choices that are preventing the patch from being applied. Is Canonical still the "OS Provider" under this law? Or is the sysadmin the responsible party?