3 ms·
No, not exemptions! Drop the stupid-ass law all together.
by kgwxd 5mo ago
No, not exemptions! Drop the stupid-ass law all together.
- trollbridge 5mo agoKind of interesting - basically exempts any OS that’s under an MIT or GPL licence… … doesn’t that excuse Android and possibly XNU, too?
- antiframe 5mo agoIs all the code running on my Google Pixel 10 licensed under GPL and/or MIT? I think we have our answer.
- user_7832 5mo agoI think there's a lot of proprietary stuff, from Google Play Services to Pixel specific features. A very significant stack of "modern" software layers are proprietary, even on Android.
- thefreeman 5mo agoI think that was his point
- user_7832 5mo agoWelp, looks like I got wooshed
- realusername 5mo agoModern open-source Android doesn't even include a working keyboard nowadays so...
- hnlmorg 5mo agoWhat are they defining as an operation system? It’s a term that has fuzzy edges as a technical term, and given laws are usually piss poor at defining technical terms, I can’t see it being well defined in CA law.
- Telaneo 5mo agoSo if you load AOSP and don't use Google Play Services, then you're exempt?
- antiframe 5mo agoI would hope so.
- floxy 5mo agoSounds like another fellow GrapheneOS user!
- antiframe 5mo agoIndeed!
- TylerE 5mo agoNo, Android is Apache 2.0.
- tangotaylor 5mo agoThis is a potential loophole. Companies could have an "open source" OS but restrict installations like Tivo did in the 2000s (i.e. "Tivoization"). Or they could allow installation of modified software but restrict functionality like the way the Google Play Integrity API can nerf apps running on custom builds of Android. Or, they can have a license like the Business Source License where you can copy, redistribute, and modify the software but you can't use it commercially. This goes against OSI's open source definition. We emailed this amendment to Buffy Wicks's staff: §1798.504(f) This title does not apply to[...]: (4) An operating system or application that meets both of the following conditions: (A) The operating system or application is distributed under license terms that permit a recipient to copy, redistribute, and modify the software, including for commercial purposes and without payment of a royalty or fee. (B) The operating system provider or developer does not, by technical or contractual means, prevent the recipient from installing modified versions of the software on a device on which the unmodified version operates, and does not restrict the functionality or interoperability of modified versions.
- mmooss 5mo agoThat's great, thank you. > copy, redistribute, and modify the software Shouldn't that specify the code not or not only the software? For example, the corporate Windows license allows the corporation to copy, redistribute (internally), and modify (via group policy, APIs, or development on the Windows platform) the software. The big difference between that and Linux is licensees can't access the code. FOSS requires free access to, use of, modification of, and redistribution of the code.
- tangotaylor 5mo agoHonestly you're probably right, code is a better term. I copied that language from Colorado's SB26-051 bill which also has a FOSS exemption and they use the word "software". I'm not a lawyer but I'm hoping that a court's interpretation of one state's language will apply to other states. That and lots of FOSS licenses use some variant of those words "copy, redistribute, and modify" so it's probably a term-of-art that courts recognize. This is what Colorado's law says. It prevents Tivoization but not feature nerfing like the Play Integrity API. § 6-30-105 (3) (e) AN OPERATING SYSTEM PROVIDER OR DEVELOPER THAT DISTRIBUTES AN OPERATING SYSTEM OR APPLICATION UNDER LICENSE TERMS THAT PERMIT A RECIPIENT TO COPY, REDISTRIBUTE, AND MODIFY THE SOFTWARE WITHOUT ANY PLATFORM-IMPOSED TECHNICAL OR CONTRACTUAL RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY THE PROVIDER OR DEVELOPER ON INSTALLING ALL MODIFIED VERSIONS.