70
Ubuntu, Fedora, Linux Mint Eye Age Verification Amid California Law Backlash (9to5linux.com)
submitted 8 months ago by to c/privacy@programming.dev
29 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 47 points 8 months ago (8 children)

Cut these States out. Forever. Let them be as examples of what happens. Stop providing them FOSS and maintenance.

Or

Will have to write a software license targeting companies and boot lickers imposing kyc.

I wrote the, not yet published, framework between sqlalchemy and web routers e.g. litestar and FastAPI.

Will be monitoring this. If it appears distros are more than willing to impose kyc or even entertain the notion (kyc as a thought crime), will expressly exclude them by imposing rates that would bankrupt countries.

You cannot impose kyc so can use my own packages and expect me to go along with it.

Also can contact other developers and ask them to switch over to an aggressive no-kyc license from their permissive licenses. Targeting packages known to be used by offending distros or other distribution channels.

kyc is a cancer. Will enthusiastically hunt it down and ostracize it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    This is a really interesting idea. As a fellow developer I like the sentiment, what licenses exist that are anti kyc?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Would like to modify aGPLv3+ license and include the following clause

    Web sites, apps, blockchain smart contracts, desktop apps, or scripts that include Background IP in their tech stack and found to advocate, consider, or impose kyc on their users, having not obtained a waiver beforehand, incurs fee of the amount, 10x previous year's GDP of the country with global reserve currency status or largest economy, whichever is greater. User authentication should be limited to the top 2 private privacy IMs. Login walls requiring email verification is kyc. Paywalls that don't provide the option for Monero or offer Monero payment option but not at a discount, is kyc. Physical address verification, although kyc, as long as there is a physical product involved, does not trigger this clause.

    aGPLv3+ already says companies have to seek waiver for commercial use from the author.

    This is how Python package authors say, Sure np there is just a fee involved.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    aGPLv3+ already says companies have to seek waiver for commercial use from the author.

    GNU Affero General Public License V3 not say that. Citation needed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    Reread aGPLv3 and you are right.

    These are non-commercial licenses: CC BY-NC, CC BY-NC-SA, and CC BY-NC-ND

    `These licenses prohibit commercial use by default, and anyone wishing to use the work commercially must obtain explicit permission (a waiver or separate license) from the rights holder.

    A one-time permission from the copyright holder allowing a specific user to use the work commercially. It does not change the license for others, only the recipient gains commercial rights. The original CC BY-NC terms (non-commercial for all others) remain.`

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

    It's less naive than an anti-kyc license. It's very pro kyc, there is just a steep fee involved.

    If said, absolutely no and the gov't says kyc is mandated, that gov't could have a judge strike out that clause. This license would not run afoul of such a law and judges are not going to strike out a fee simply because the effort and costs involved to obtain a waiver from package authors is inconvenient.

    Don't think in terms of prohibition. There is always a way to yes as long as the govt or company can go against the interests of it's stakeholders and it's helpful being open to financial suicide.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    I don’t understand all of this but I’m happy knowing you are on the job

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 child)

    What i'm suggesting is a supply chain attack targeting only imposers of kyc. Only change is the license.

    Each web site is built on a tech stack. With shared tech stacks. There are only a few possible choices.

    Would only have to convince very few authors and it affects the entire planet. Cuz many of these packages are not easily replaced.

    Our tech stacks are hanging on by a thread. Maintenance is very underfunded which screams, at risk! Without the good will of maintainers and them self-funding the maintenance, all the companies making web sites would have have legal liabilities hanging over their heads, if they ever dared to have their web site impose kyc.

    Is there anything else can help to clarify?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •