He also noted that, from a non-lawyer perspective, it remains uncertain how these regulations would apply to a non-commercial, volunteer-driven project like Debian, which does not sell software and distributes it in a decentralized manner.
FUCKING THANK YOU.
This is why I stick with Debian. Adults make decisions over there.
This is what the DPL actually wrote on the subject:
Recent discussions have started around new age verification legislation that may affect free software operating systems. In particular, the California Digital Age Assurance Act (AB 1043), expected to take effect in 2027, raises questions about whether operating systems and package distribution mechanisms could be required to provide age-related information to applications. In parallel, a recently adopted law in Brazil appears to introduce similar requirements and is already in force, with initial interpretations suggesting it could apply to components such as package management tools. These developments are currently under discussion within Debian and other projects, and SPI has initiated efforts to obtain legal guidance. At this stage, the situation remains unclear, and further analysis is ongoing.
From a non-lawyer perspective, it is not yet clear how such regulations apply to a non-commercial, volunteer-driven project like Debian, which does not sell software and provides it in a highly decentralized way. It seems plausible that obligations, if any, may primarily affect redistributors or commercial entities building products on top of Debian. In such cases, Debian would as usual be open to contributions that help downstreams meet their requirements, while keeping such features optional and respecting the needs of users in other jurisdictions. However, this is an area where proper legal analysis is still required.
Source: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2026/04/msg00001.html
I think the position to adopt is very clear:
Thus you achieve the only reasonable position towards this nonsense.
"Fuck off" is the only appropriate answer.
Aim it at the right people - but say it loud and clear.
TL;DR they are lawyering up and hasn't said for or aginst
Fair enough, that means they're probably gonna sue over it.
I read that as "new-age" verification. LOL
We gotta inspect your Chakra dude.
Tille suggested that, if such obligations arise, they would likely affect redistributors or commercial entities building on Debian, rather than the Debian project itself.
if my edgerouter 4 adds age verification i'm going to burn everything to the ground
Just fucking block Brasil and California from using debian
I’m against these laws, strongly, but I think sending vitriol at systemd and distrust is not constructive.
The battle is legal and pretending it isn’t and fighting our maintainers who realistically can’t afford to be sued over good, is not helping the cause.
It’s humans at the end of the pipe. Thoughtful and vulnerable humans.
FYI : a place where some of these PRs have been created , and unfortunately, one already merged into Systemd
https://lemmy.world/post/44679693
In Systemd, already merged.
In xdg.desktop.portal (a portal frontend service for Flatpak and other desktop containment frameworks), still open.
In Arch Linux, still open.
In Freedesktop.org, still open.
Right now the only Debian system I have is on Oldstable. If Debian decides to implement age verification/attestation, do you think it's going to be backported to that version? 🤔
The problem isn't the specific nature of the rule: having an api call in the background that can broadcast a user's age range (if it isn't a clearly identifiable marker) makes sense.
The problem is that if the government is able to tell open source developers "YOU MUST INSERT THIS CODE OR ELSE!!!" then what's next?
Will in 5 years they require Persona in order to install an Operating System to combat terrorism?
Will in 7 years they require a closed source module created by the government to be running at all times and the kernel must check to make sure if the closed source module is running?
Part of open source software is creativity, freedom, and freedom of speech. Some software is created because developers like creating things.
I hope Debian fights back against this on first amendment grounds. Great code is not that different from a great work of art, there is unique creativity in something elegantly coded that functions well, and telling developers they can't code how they want is the path toward totalitarianism.
It's one thing to force this into Microslop and Android and iOS because those are large profitable companies who don't actually care as long as they make money. It's another thing to force FOSS developers who develop for free because of the love of software and great code that they must change their code in a certain way.
Never give up without a fight.
Will drop debian like that if they capitulate a single inch
There is no law that governs Linux development related to this, enywhere else. There is only a law in CA that requires this functionality (which would break any and all software infrastructure). Why would any maintainer of any Linux distribution, not actively dependent on following an untested law (from a legal PoV), even consider implementing it? This got a lot of headlines, because it's absurd and stupid.
If maintainers wanted to comply, what the fuck would it actually entail? 99% of operating system doesn't have any specific human users to identify. The only reasonable approach is to ignore it. If data centers in CA for Azure, AWS, GCP, or any other, wants to comply with this (which is impossible), either spend some of that tax free revenue to combat Meta's suspected 2 billion USD effort in getting these online ID laws pushed through.
Choosing not to decide is a choice for age verification..
all 76 comments