HN

Comments (68)

• Menu

  huimang
  So is anyone going to revert the commits that jumped the gun on this?E.g. systemd's birthdate field https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/40954
• Menu

  cm2187
  Excellent. From now on all kids will become linux natives. The decade of the linux desktop is coming!
• rbbydotdev
  this bill fixes nothing. if you wanted to prevent harm from the internet you would start with proper privacy laws. but we all know why that will never happen
• Menu

  kennywinker
  > (2) “Operating system provider” does not mean a person or entity that distributes an operating system or application under license terms that permit a recipient to copy, redistribute, and modify the software.Where does MacOS and iOS fit then? The core of both those operating systems (darwin) is open source (APSL licensed).
• Menu

  nottorp
  Linux?Or also BSD, ReactOS, hobby OS #24562 etc... ?
• pipes
  My gut reaction to this is that there is something seriously wrong if special clauses are required. Why should open source get special treatment, to me that just highlights that the law is utterly ridiculous.
• conartist6
  I love that Microsoft is committing a crime by continuing to let me use Win10
• Menu

  russellbeattie
  Laws need to be managed like software: There should be a process for testing, user feedback, quick patches for bugs or conflicts, and regular updates to fix issues. If you think about it, both laws and software are called "code".The problem is our legal system is still based on the waterfall method. Lawmakers try to plan for everything, laws meant to solve one problem face feature creep and create a thousand others, then no one wants to touch anything after launch for fear of making things worse or because that one guy uses the temperature of his CPU as a quick-key and refuses to change his workflow.Anyways, no law is perfect and never will be, and neither are the fixes.
• gspr
  Rest of the headline: "software distributed under the GPL, MIT, BSD, and Apache licenses are exempt"And then further into the text it's clarified that there also isn't a specific list of open licenses, as the terrible headline would have you believe, but instead a description of what is considered openWith the caveat that I haven't read the actual legal text, this seems to be an eminently sensible law (it'd be better if it weren't needed, but here we are).In summary: not a Linux exemption, and not an exemption for a specific list of licenses either.
• catlikesshrimp
  Can someone the exemption for browser extensions and other contained software? My best guess is that the OS > Browser are reporting the age already, and the browser extensions will also use that "signal". Is this close enough?" third carve-out excludes storefronts distributing extensions or add-ons that run exclusively inside a host application, which takes browser extension stores out of scope."
• Menu

  kersplody
  Cool now let's exempt hobbyists from the 3-D printer must certify you are not printing gun parts pending legislation.
• Menu

  phendrenad2
  I'm starting to warm up to this law. So many loopholes. Nothing to worry about. I think California's incompetence has finally progressed from "proposes bad laws" to "proposes and botches the implementation of bad laws"
• Menu

  anigbrowl
  Weird how the people who habitually complain about government are conspicuously silent when it delivers something they wanted.
• Menu

  ghssds
  And now a bunch of OSI-Approved licenses get to have special rules applied to them, entrenching them and killing further innovation.
• Menu

  gafferongames
  Now do FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD... =p
• LogTrim
  [dead]
• Calvin02
  [flagged]
• hardwaresofton
  AGPL…?