simple repositories cannot be meant, otherwise MS and Apple and Linux etc. could no longer run software updates, and I am sure that nobody will want to forbid this. The problem is to distinguish between OS software updates and external software, e.g. games. With other words, fdnpkg16 will still stay, simply because it is needed for updates. And if really not: I know so many bugs in other os tools, that you can fix, there is a lot to do for you.
So don't worry 😉
fritz / willi
--
Gesendet mit der mail.com Mail App
Gesendet mit der mail.com Mail App
Am 03.05.26, 21:35 schrieb Victoria Crenshaw via Freedos-devel <freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>:
i am quite upset on the mentioning removing of the software i did work
hard on improving honestly.. for some quite honestly dumb law that
politicians dont understand tech and it is a massive black flag for me
for more surveillance. It's annoying but if i need to modify fdnpkg16
for freedos. i can, but we cannot do id verification in dos.. it is
quite ridiculous
i need a recap of this discussion for FDNPKG16, please. i need a short
hand info. because i deeply disagree with these laws because freedos
dont really have anything obscene in it. it is just more surveillance.
help me out guys
On 4/27/26 7:28 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
> Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
_______________________________________________
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
_______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
