Post #1396205

2026-03-21 14:49 UTC

@benjamineskola @oblomov @kirb Who is an Operating System Provider in case of Linux system? To cite the definition from the California bill itself: “Operating system provider” means a person or entity that develops, licenses, or controls the operating system software on a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. Linux OSs are made up multiple parts made by multiple different parties, the bill does not have clear enough definition to distinguish who should be responsible with implementation of that bill in my opinion. This is rather clear with Microsoft and Apple, but not with Linux.

Replies (1)

@benjamineskola@hachyderm.io 2026-03-21 14:57

@Frisk Good luck arguing that in court! The problem is that it’s very easy to think up theories like this, but there’s every chance that a judge will decide that there’s a clear meaning that _does_ included FOSS projects — and I don’t think such an interpretation is completely unreasonable. We clearly think of Debian (for example) as an operating system distributed by the Debian project, etc, even if we know that its components come from elsewhere. The other problem here I think is that it doesn’t seem fair to expect others to bear the risk. I am not one of the people who might be sued as a result of this; so what right do I have to tell the people who *are* at risk of being sued that they should do nothing to protect themselves, and just wait to get sued? I think civil disobedience is a great idea but it’s something that people need to choose for themselves, not to do armchair activism over the internet.

Open ##1396206