Reminds me of a common queer saying (cause I -am- a proud queer person)
"Those who make space to sate the sensibilities of those who oppose you,
will eventually find themselves without any space."
-----
In this instance, I see the contemplation of complying in advance,
removing FDNPKG & FDNPKG16 before they assuage the sensibilities of
lawmakers on a power trip - who feel they have the divine right to
compel the shape of the internet and software of the future - who feel
that the 1st and 4th amendment makes a good 2-ply.
Are we really here making space to sate the sensibilities of law-makers
that want to control free software? If FDNPKG is not safe - no package
is safe. The only correct move is to create friction, push back, and
organize.
If queers fought for their rights alone, we wouldn't even have had this
pushback in this current administration today. We all would have been
crushed under such an oppressive system long long ago. Remember, we (as
passionate open source developers) are not alone. There are many open
source projects and distros out there threatened by this, so it should
make sense we all pull our time, labor, and funds together so we all
don't get steamrolled by these ID laws.
I wish I could go more into why shinking away is such a bad idea. I felt
that it is certainly worthwhile to talk about this subject while it's
important. Look at the carveouts we got now just by pushing back and
imagine we can shut out these dumb laws for good with even more pushback.
~ ilobmirt
On 4/27/26 8:28 PM, Jim Hall via Freedos-devel wrote:
I've been following the age-verification laws, since that has an
impact on any open source operating system project (potentially
including FreeDOS). I wanted to share a few updates:
First, it appears that Colorado's age verification law (SB26-051)
*might* be amended to exclude open source operating systems.
Specifically, any operating system provider or developer that
distributes the operating system (or app) under license terms that
permit users to copy, modify, and redistribute it. But if you sell the
operating system, then you still fall under SB26-051.
*Original version: (without amendments)
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/SB26-051
So that's good. We'll have to keep an eye on that one, but this is a
good change in direction.
Second, I've been talking with another open source organization about
the California law (AB-1043). The other organization doesn't want to
go on record right now because they aren't a lobbying organization,
but it's a recognizable name. They've also been working with other
open source projects and organizations, and having similar discussions
about AB-1043. I don't think this person wanted me to name those other
organizations and projects, but you'd recognize some of them as big
projects and big players in open source.
*Original version: (California)
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1043
There have been some discussions with California lawmakers about
AB-1043, and I understand lawmakers are discussing a set of proposed
changes that would carve out an exception for open source operating
systems (like FreeDOS).
Specifically, the proposed changes include wording that changes who is
an 'operating system provider' to someone who sells or supplies the
operating system for a fee. If they go forward with the proposed
changes, FreeDOS (as an operating system) should be exempted from
AB-1043.
However, the changes to AB-1043 still have some language about 'app
stores' that bothers me. The way they seem to define this *could*
include a mechanism or app that downloads and installs programs from a
central repository. To me, that "smells" like any network-aware
package manager that can download programs from a repository and
install them.
Specifically, that sounds too close to FDNPKG and FDNPKG16.
I will definitely be following this one very closely. But we might
consider removing FDNPKG/FDNPKG16 from the FreeDOS distribution if
California makes the changes to the "operating system" part of the
law, but doesn't change the "app store" part of the law.
That also suggests we should start moving toward a "FreeDOS 1.5"
distribution, to be released before the end of 2026, with any changes
that will exclude us from the age-verification laws. We can discuss
"FreeDOS 1.5" in a separate email thread, not this one.
__
Also:
If you live in California or Colorado, please talk to your
representatives. Meet with them or their staffers if you can; it
really has an impact. If you can't meet with them, send a letter
and/or make a phone call to their office to discuss it. Be respectful;
having worked with government folks before, I know that lawmakers tend
to discount "shouty" people.
__
Also also:
If you don't live in the US, I can understand seeing these
age-verification laws as silly and stupid (and they are) but those of
us in the US can't ignore them. Note that there's a significant $$
penalty for each minor affected by a noncompliant operating system or
app store.
FreeDOS doesn't have a "foundation" like other larger open source
projects; we're just a collection of developers working on a (very
cool) open source operating system. But without a legal entity to
cover us, any penalties would fall to individuals, like me or you. And
obviously I don't want that.
I'm not ready to consider "giving up" FreeDOS from a legal perspective
(i.e. legally separating "me" from "FreeDOS" in some way) but I've got
that in the back of my mind, in case they don't change the laws before
they go into effect in January 2027.
_______________________________________________
Freedos-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
_______________________________________________
Freedos-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
