Post #1636861

2026-04-24 15:58 UTC

The amended CO SB51 bill with a strong exemption for open source distros and apps was passed in the house committee. THIS ARTICLE 30 DOES NOT APPLY TO: 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 RESTRICTION FROM THE PROVIDER OR DEVELOPER, INCLUDING ANY TECHNICAL OR CONTRACTUAL RESTRICTIONS ON INSTALLING ALL MODIFIED VERSIONS.

Replies (9)

@carlrichell@fosstodon.org 2026-04-24 15:58

There are more steps but we're on our way to protecting the open source community, at least in CO.

Open ##1652543
@claudiom@bsd.network 2026-04-24 16:51

@carlrichell Citation missing, so here is the amendment: https://legiscan.com/CO/amendment/SB051/id/296180

Open ##1652547
@paranormal_distribution@fosstodon.org 2026-04-24 20:43

@carlrichell Right in the feels, man. I know you probably get this a lot this right now, but you're the GOAT for your work on this issue!

Open ##1652548
@bzdev@fosstodon.org 2026-04-24 23:45

@carlrichell Thanks, Carl! BTW (and this has to be run past a lawyer), is there still a problem with software distributed under a GPL, which requires that software that uses GPL-licensed code be open source as well? It depends on how broadly the word "restriction" is taken.

Open ##1652549
@mirabilos@toot.mirbsd.org 2026-04-25 00:40

@carlrichell the systemd et al. people will be angry now that they reduced their cred for nothing. Oh wait.

Open ##1652551
@schroedingerspossum@mastodon.social 2026-04-25 16:11

@carlrichell that's great news, thank you for talking to the legislators there

Open ##1674817
@wwahammy@social.treehouse.systems 2026-04-26 02:00

@carlrichell while I appreciate this, it's not enough to only give ourselves freedom. No one should be a victim of these laws.

Open ##1823042
@geraldog@amatriz.org 2026-04-26 04:08

@carlrichell Congratulations on taming Leviathan...

Open ##1823046
@riverpunk@defcon.social 2026-04-26 21:05

@carlrichell hmm, so under this law, would the GPL and other viral licenses be considered open source? After all, it _does_ place restrictions on modification (namely, if you modify and publish the binary output, you also have to publish the modified source code).

Open ##1823047