this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2026
560 points (99.0% liked)

Open Source

48851 readers
228 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 54 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Kids are gonna learn Linux to watch porn and I couldn’t be happier about it.

[–] KarnaSubarna@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Porn websites will most likely going to have age verification enabled. So, it might not matter what OS or browser kids use to visit such websites.

[–] mik3dd0@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

there's always 4chan /gif/ 👀

[–] horus_son_of_isis@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago

that's desperate measures more like there's always yarr harr yo ho

[–] 4am@lemmy.zip 93 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Linux locked out of age-gated services because it doesn’t have the necessary verification features and adoption stifles in 3…2…

But seriously do you think it’s really a good thing that the country seems to be moving forward with requiring ID to be online, and suddenly they’re like “oh pff Linux? Yeah don’t worry about that shit, it can be exempt whatever” like that makes it for Special Boys who can Keep Their Freedom and Tendies?

No man, it’ll be DRM’d off the internet. They’ll keep using it for servers since servers don’t need to verify their age to clients. This feels like an attempt to kill Linux on the desktop.

The correct thing would be to not have this law at all.

[–] zarathustrad@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Good news! Linux isn't getting "locked out" of age-gated services (those checks happen at the site itself for ID vendors, digital ID wallets), not via the OS. There's no mechanism in these laws that transmits an OS age signal to websites, so there's nothing to lock Linux out of. Sites just fall back to their own verification, same as they must for any desktop browser.

The "they'll quietly exempt Linux as a trap" framing also doesn't match reality: California's AB 1856 passed 69-0 explicitly redefining "OS provider" to exclude GPL/MIT/BSD/Apache software, Colorado exempts open-source OS outright, and the exemption bans requesting age signals unless legally required , the opposite of a DRM channel. Servers are untouched because there's no obligation on servers.

That said, the core worry is legitimate: these laws are scope creep waiting to happen. An earlier draft of AB 1856 would have forced browsers and websites to demand age signals and, that would have hit Linux hard. It died this time, but nothing says it stays dead. So the threat isn't today's statutes, it's the next round of amendments, plus hybrid cases like SteamOS sitting in legal gray zones.

You're right, the law shouldn't exist at all, and the trajectory deserves skepticism.

However, the mechanism is not there Nobody's DRM'ing Linux off the internet, YET.

The fight is making sure that stays true.

[–] snrkl@lemmus.org 37 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Whilst this would be better than blanket age verification, I feel it's a mediocre outcome for the wrong fight.

Rather than taking a carve out for FOSS, the right fight is to get the ~~online anonymity ban~~ age verification legislation taken out completely.

If we let ourselves be satisfied with a carve out for those of us who are technically literate enough to sidestep early implementations anyway, we let the status quo change, until eventually they will come back for FOSS with the justification:

"well, EVERYONE ELSE submits to age verification, why should FOSS be any different?!"

or more likely:

"${scaryThreat} now uses FOSS to commit ${heinousCrime} against ${peopleWeSuddenlyCareAboutForPoliticalCapital} so we HAVE to protect the kids on FOSS now too!! #thoughtsAndPrayers #wontSomebodyThinkOfTheChildren"

[–] HerbGrower@slrpnk.net 9 points 3 days ago

Instead of age verification, it should be improved parental controls. Make it more obvious how to set them up. The initial boot for windows first page could be "are you setting this up for an adult or child?", even require shops selling computers to make sure customers understand that.

Make the parents take the responsibility they are currently somehow managing to avoid.

[–] thingsiplay@lemmy.ml 96 points 4 days ago (2 children)

BTW System76, the company behind their Linux laptops and the Linux desktop COSMIC, was fighting hard against the law to make exemptions for Open Source software. That's important for them, because System76 operates in California. So I think they are big part to thank for here: Colorado and California Exempt Open Source from Age Attestation (May 2026)

[–] Flipper@feddit.org 23 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The way you currently say it, they tried to stop the exemption. They fought for the law, so OS gets an exemption.

Or do I understand you wrong?

[–] thingsiplay@lemmy.ml 17 points 4 days ago

Yeah, that was misunderstood. I said or meant "they was fighting against the law, so they can make an exemption". To make it clear, the linked article from System76 goes into more detail. I just wanted bring attention to this, because the original linked article on tomshardware does not mention them.

[–] vas@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 days ago (4 children)

According to this website https://github.com/BryanLunduke/DoesItAgeVerify

System76 also planned to implement age verification should the law pass. They did not claim that they'll relocate or re-register their company legally, or request their users upon installation to not use the OS in California/Colorado, or anything like that actually.

I think that's noteworthy. I personally consider it half a fight. Like, you create noise, but if boss says it's OK, you say "OK, you're the boss after all".

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Etterra@discuss.online 38 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Translation: there's no way to force open source software to follow the law as it was written.

[–] PriorityMotif@lemmy.world 20 points 4 days ago (2 children)

It would wildly fuck with enterprise systems because you would have to have a way to verify age for the users of EVERY system. The way it is now you would have to verify the age of users of iot and smart devices. You have to have id to turn on your lights or use the refrigerator.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Evotech@lemmy.world 53 points 4 days ago (2 children)

«We really dont wanna deal with these nerds, lets just ignore them for now»

[–] azimir@lemmy.ml 23 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Also: << the nerds aren't going to do any of this shit, so... let's look like the good guys by exempting them so we don't look terrible when the nerds show how obviously this is all security theater >>

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 10 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I was literally going to figure out how to fork and compile it myself if it was forced

[–] azimir@lemmy.ml 9 points 4 days ago

Awesome. That's the Geek Way.

Shadowrun shouldn't be a documentary, but here we go.

[–] DeadDigger@lemmy.zip 6 points 4 days ago

"We don't want to risk Linux getting banned and destroying our complete technical ecosystem"

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 44 points 4 days ago

Band-aid over an intolerable abuse.

No computer needs personally identifying information just to boot. You are an object, do as you're told. There is no legitimate government interest that justifies this demand.

[–] Midnitte@beehaw.org 25 points 4 days ago

Such a stupid law.

Why is the OS responsible for verifying the age of people using Facebook or whatever?

Imagine if it was Jim Beam's job to verify you were over 21.

[–] sudoer777@lemmy.ml 11 points 3 days ago (3 children)

California should make Windows as annoying to use as possible so more people switch to Linux

[–] zarathustrad@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Slap some Proposition 65 warning labels on the Windows update warnings, that should help. I'm sure windows can cause cancer in some way.

[–] horus_son_of_isis@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago

Microsoft is a cancer.

[–] daivika_sareeram@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Windows already is annoying to use.💔🫩

[–] horus_son_of_isis@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago

Been getting worse every day since XP was shelved.

[–] HerbGrower@slrpnk.net 5 points 3 days ago

Pretty sure they don't need help with that...

[–] alb@reddthat.com 33 points 4 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

I haven't been following this particular law, but I've always wondered how it would have been implemented for servers.
Even windows has a server edition I believe, if a corporation is using a windows server, would one of their IT employees have to verify it themselves?
What about IOT operating systems, docker/podman containers, router firmware, and so on. Not sure if they address these things in the legal code or not.

This is good news for california, I believe atleast colorado has a similar law being proposed as well. Hope they take notes from cali.

[–] KarnaSubarna@lemmy.ml 18 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Is it even technically possible to enforce it on open-source application, with code readily available for tweaks and modifications?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] bonding259@lemmy.ml 13 points 4 days ago (1 children)

This is only IF Gavin Newsom signs it. There's no reason to believe he would. It's not like he's famous for following what the people of California want.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 days ago

Do the people actually want this? I assumed it was lawmakers serving oligarchs.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.world 21 points 4 days ago (7 children)

This is good news. But why make this distinction? Why is this ok for FOSS but not other platforms?

Also private platforms are more likely to abuse this information.

[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 14 points 4 days ago

Well, politics isn't about finding the one principle to rule them all. The folks/companies that find restricting access to children important, probably don't particularly care about some Linux devices being excluded. And other folks/companies find not restricting their Linux server really important, so that's a compromise that can be made.

I imagine, they landed on specifically open-source being excluded as the more abstract rule, because open-source in particular has a problem here.
Anyone can download open-source software and run it. In most cases, there is no central backend, which could handle age verification.

And even if there is, it's not really financially viable to offer that for anyone who downloads the software for free. Requiring payment to access the binaries or the source code would also effectively kill the open-source ecosystem, which is also not in the interest of most people.

[–] MisterD@lemmy.ca 7 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Because this is temporary. FOSS OS' will be forced to comply in 10-15years max if the law stands.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] anon_8675309@lemmy.world 16 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Microsoft switching to a Linux kernel in…

[–] thingsiplay@lemmy.ml 29 points 4 days ago (7 children)

Why do you assume that Microsoft doesn't want to comply?

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] daggermoon@piefed.world 17 points 4 days ago (1 children)

GPL edition of Windows coming when?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] quackenbush@lemmy.zip 6 points 4 days ago

Welp time to switch to Linux and graphene

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 8 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Can we please include the whole rest of the SPDX license list?

Or even better, restrict it to a few commercial ones?

[–] balsoft@lemmy.ml 9 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The actual language in the law is "under license terms that permit a recipient to copy, redistribute, and modify the software". So yeah all the FOSS licenses and even some commercial ones are exempt, only the EULA-ridden shit (i.e. macOS and windows) is gonna be affected. I wonder if Google will start releasing "Chromiumbooks" with license terms that allow them to evade this law.

[–] zarenki@lemmy.ml 7 points 4 days ago

Google doesn't even have a motive to try evading this. Legally mandating that they collect user IDs means that they get to collect more personal data under the guise of compliance, and can also market the increased privacy invasion as a "child safety" feature.

ChromiumOS doesn't need to comply, according to the current bill, but Google has no reason to ship it preinstalled on any consumer devices.

load more comments
view more: next ›