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.

based

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.

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 >>

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

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.

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.

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".

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

They already have GDID which tracks you everywhere you go on the Internet and is tied to your $M💩 account

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

It's fundamentally unenforceable, even if they tried to do what they've done to phones and not allow other OS's to be installed, you could still get development boxes, embedded boxes, etc that by nature of being what they are could not have locked boot loaders.

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

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

Windows already is annoying to use.💔🫩

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

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.

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

Because FOSS isn't the problem. The problem the law seeks to address is profit-driven big businesses like Meta and Fortnite who don't care to provide any protections for kids or actively target them in their manipulative behaviour, hence targeting the laws at the actual problem (non-FOSS software).

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.