TheLazyNerd comments on California passes law requiring ID checks for all operating systems | Governor Newsom signs bills to further strengthen California’s leadership in protecting children online

[–] TheLazyNerd@europe.pub 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

The word 'application' means the binary. The source code is not the application.

parent

[–] freeman@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

That's your opinion. It's wrong. There even are applications that do not have binaries at all. There is no reason to believe the legislators would not want them covered by this law, it certainly does not say so.

It also does not make a difference, owner of the copyright of a binary is the owner of the copyright of the source code. Compiling does not remove the copyright of the source code author as the binary is clearly derived from the source code. The person who compiles the source code does not even get any copyright since it's not a creative process.

You are not helping FOSS by trying to portray the law as FOSS friendly when it isn't. Unfortunately the law rarely is FOSS friendly if not due to hostility due to indifference/ignorance on the part of the legislators.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] TheLazyNerd@europe.pub 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

That’s your opinion. It’s wrong.

Only facts can be right or wrong.

Anyway, I know there are applications that don't have binaries, but most do. I am not a lawyer, but if I'm not mistaken, source code is under U.S. law protected by the first amendment while binaries are not.

Also, it doesn't matter who owns the copyright. The laws specifies "a person that owns, maintains, or controls an application".

I am not saying that the law is FOSS friendly. I am saying that the law does not cover all FOSS software despite it being the clear intend of the lawmakers to cover all software. In such cases it will have to be decided by courts (I believe courts still have this function for state laws), whether it also applies to FOSS software.

What I am saying is that the lawmakers clearly do not understand the topic they are trying to regulate.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] freeman@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

Only facts can be right or wrong.

Opinions (such as that the Earth is flat) can obviously be wrong. Facts cannot. Look up the definition of fact.

Anyway, I know there are applications that don’t have binaries, but most do. I am not a lawyer, but if I’m not mistaken, source code is under U.S. law protected by the first amendment while binaries are not.

You admit applications are not necessarily binary, the law does not mention binary or source code or anything like that where it defines applications. You are just grasping at straws to justify an indefensible position, that whoever possesses a binary is it's owner.

Which is obviously untrue. Ownership of software means ownership of it's copyright. It's been made very clear in the last decades that you (legally) don't even own software that you pay for. You own a license to use the software.

You cannot argue, in good faith at least, that this is what is intended by the law. First it would be spelled out and secondly it would mean that for all applications, not just FOSS ones, the people paying the fines would be the users, $2500 for each app they install that's in violation. Which is obviously not what's intended.

I am not saying that the law is FOSS friendly. I am saying that the law does not cover all FOSS software despite it being the clear intend of the lawmakers to cover all software. In such cases it will have to be decided by courts (I believe courts still have this function for state laws), whether it also applies to FOSS software.

Unfortunately it does since it does not discriminate. If anybody that can be effectively prosecuted (i.e. US/California resident) takes your advice and takes it to court, he is getting fucked.

What I am saying is that the lawmakers clearly do not understand the topic they are trying to regulate.

No shit. That does not mean FOSS software is not affected. You also do not understand the topic or choose to not understand it because it's spells trouble for FOSS. But pretending everything is ok does not make it so. FOSS projects either need to implement it or make sure they isolate themselves from US/California jurisdiction.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] TheLazyNerd@europe.pub 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

Opinions (such as that the Earth is flat) can obviously be wrong. I thought I knew English, but apparently not. (I'm not a native speaker.) I always assumed that "opinion" meant the same as judgement (which is what I learned at school), but I just looked opinion up in the dictionary, and it can also mean belief or or view.

It’s been made very clear in the last decades that you (legally) don’t even own software that you pay for. You own a license to use the software. This is untrue. Legally speaking you "own" the software, but what you can do with the software is limited by both the copyright and the license. Often this license will say that the creator still owns the software, so by accepting the license, you no longer own the software. Today you often have to accept the license before you even download the software. So you are correct that the user doesn't own the software, but that's not the default. For example, FOSS licenses do not specify that the creator continues to own the software, therefore ownership is given to the user.

for all applications, not just FOSS ones, the people paying the fines would be the users, $2500 Nope. Since most licenses say that the developer is the owner, the fine would go to the developer. Also, the law says that the fine can go to the "maintainer" which, again, is the developer.

takes your advice I wasn't giving advice. I'm saying that the decision is up to the court. But if you want legal advice (disclaimer: I am not a lawyer): Do not do anything of which the legality still has to be decided by a court.

That does not mean FOSS software is not affected I never said that. I said that FOSS software is affected differently if you take the law by the letter (which the courts don't have to do).

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] freeman@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago

This is untrue. Legally speaking you “own” the software, but what you can do with the software is limited by both the copyright and the license. Often this license will say that the creator still owns the software, so by accepting the license, you no longer own the software. Today you often have to accept the license before you even download the software. So you are correct that the user doesn’t own the software, but that’s not the default. For example, FOSS licenses do not specify that the creator continues to own the software, therefore ownership is given to the user.

You have a major misunderstanding of copyright law. Licenses do not need to keep or 'turn back' 'ownership' of software to the developers, copyright law does that. If you get hold of software without accepting a license, you do not become it's owner, you in fact have no right to use it and could be sued for doing so by the holder of it's copyright.

takes your advice I wasn’t giving advice. I’m saying that the decision is up to the court. But if you want legal advice (disclaimer: I am not a lawyer): Do not do anything of which the legality still has to be decided by a court.

Well if someone was convinced by your opinion that the law does not cover FOSS software he would be fucked. Hopefully he will also read your advice and act accordingly.

That does not mean FOSS software is not affected I never said that. I said that FOSS software is affected differently if you take the law by the letter (which the courts don’t have to do).

Which is wrong. Thankfully because your opinion is that the user is the owner would mean the law would fuck over way more people.

You could just admit that the law if bad for all software including FOSS.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent