4 ms·

Being "trivial to comply with" is completely disjunct and not at all an argument against "this type of law is fundamentally at odds with the liberty and self-de

Being "trivial to comply with" is completely disjunct and not at all an argument against "this type of law is fundamentally at odds with the liberty and self-determination that open source projects require and should protect." It's a shot across the bow to open-source, it's literally the government telling you what code your computer has to run. It is gesturing in the direction of existential threat for Free software and I am not exaggerating. It's purposefully "trivial" so you don't notice or protest too much that this is the first time the State is forcing you to include something purely of their own disturbed ideation in your creative work.

gzread 7mo ago
Free software is already mandated to do a lot of things, like not defraud the user. If you make a bitcoin wallet that sends 5% of your money to the developer without asking I'm pretty sure you'll be prosecuted, so the government is compelling you to ask the user for consent to do that. When you make food you're compelled to write the ingredients. We tolerate these because they are obvious and trivial, but pedantically, food labelling laws also violate the first amendment.
- akersten 7mo ago
  > Free software is already mandated to do a lot of things, like not defraud the user. Surely you recognize the difference between "you cannot go out of your way to do crime" and "your software must include this specific feature"?? > When you make food you're compelled to write the ingredients. Well, the point about how this affects open source is that under a similar California law, every home kitchen would need to be equipped with an electronic transponder whose purpose is to announce to the world what ingredient bucket you used for tonight's casserole.
  - gzread 7mo ago
    Which part of the California law announces your browsing history to the world?
    - akersten 7mo ago
      In the earnest interpretation of your question that presumes you're not trying to drag this into a quagmire of nitpicking over the metaphor, the analogous part of the California law to the casserole ingredient advertisement is announcing the user's age bucket to the world. The world being, any app or website that happens to ask for it. I don't know why you brought browser histoy into this, it's not in the law and I didn't mention it. Anyway, the whole point of the metaphor, because I feel like I will have to explain it, is that we don't put these onerous "required labeling" rules in place for private individuals going about their own lives. So just like you don't have to tell anyone who asks what you put in your dinner last night, private individuals should not have to tell anyone who asks (websites, apps) what age demographic they fall into. Note: this is one of many arguments I endorse against this type of law. This shouldn't be interpreted as "so that's all you're worried about?" just because we dissected it in detail here.
      - gzread 7mo ago
        Is it bad that the bartender knows my birthdate?
- kortilla 7mo ago
  No, being mandated to not do something is absolutely not the same as being mandated to do something.

gzread 7mo ago

Free software is already mandated to do a lot of things, like not defraud the user. If you make a bitcoin wallet that sends 5% of your money to the developer without asking I'm pretty sure you'll be prosecuted, so the government is compelling you to ask the user for consent to do that. When you make food you're compelled to write the ingredients. We tolerate these because they are obvious and trivial, but pedantically, food labelling laws also violate the first amendment.

akersten 7mo ago
> Free software is already mandated to do a lot of things, like not defraud the user. Surely you recognize the difference between "you cannot go out of your way to do crime" and "your software must include this specific feature"?? > When you make food you're compelled to write the ingredients. Well, the point about how this affects open source is that under a similar California law, every home kitchen would need to be equipped with an electronic transponder whose purpose is to announce to the world what ingredient bucket you used for tonight's casserole.
- gzread 7mo ago
  Which part of the California law announces your browsing history to the world?
  - akersten 7mo ago
    In the earnest interpretation of your question that presumes you're not trying to drag this into a quagmire of nitpicking over the metaphor, the analogous part of the California law to the casserole ingredient advertisement is announcing the user's age bucket to the world. The world being, any app or website that happens to ask for it. I don't know why you brought browser histoy into this, it's not in the law and I didn't mention it. Anyway, the whole point of the metaphor, because I feel like I will have to explain it, is that we don't put these onerous "required labeling" rules in place for private individuals going about their own lives. So just like you don't have to tell anyone who asks what you put in your dinner last night, private individuals should not have to tell anyone who asks (websites, apps) what age demographic they fall into. Note: this is one of many arguments I endorse against this type of law. This shouldn't be interpreted as "so that's all you're worried about?" just because we dissected it in detail here.
    - gzread 7mo ago
      Is it bad that the bartender knows my birthdate?
kortilla 7mo ago
No, being mandated to not do something is absolutely not the same as being mandated to do something.