Comment by lysace
1 day ago
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
I think mistercheph is right to be concerned. This bill applies to all "operating system providers", defined thusly:
(g) “Operating system provider” means a person or entity that develops, licenses, or controls the operating system software on a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device.
Regarding penalities:
1798.503. (a) A person that violates this title shall be subject to an injunction and liable for a civil penalty of not more than two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) per affected child for each negligent violation or not more than seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) per affected child for each intentional violation, which shall be assessed and recovered only in a civil action brought in the name of the people of the State of California by the Attorney General.
>This bill applies to all "operating system providers", ...
Not really.
>...for the purpose of providing a signal regarding the user’s age bracket to applications available in a covered application store.
So the OS has to provide an age signal to apps from a "covered application store" defined as:
e) (1) “Covered application store” means a publicly available internet website, software application, online service, or platform that distributes and facilitates the download of applications from third-party developers to users of a computer, a mobile device, or any other general purpose computing that can access a covered application store or can download an application.
(2) “Covered application store” does not mean an online service or platform that distributes extensions, plug-ins, add-ons, or other software applications that run exclusively within a separate host application.
So things like Windows, Android and iOS...
It doesn't say "only if there's a covered application store present on the system". But maybe everyone in power will interpret this non-logically in exactly the right way that this doesn't become abusive.
Laws are designed and intended to be reasonable. I think you are using an inappropriate form of logic here. The intent of the law is fairly obvious.
Wouldn’t that classification apply to Linux package managers as well?
They are publicly available online services that distribute and facilitate the download of applications from third party developers to users of a general purpose computing device.
That doesn't seem to be the intent for something like, say, Debian. How would that work anyway?
This would probably cover something like a Linux based Steam box, where there are different organizations providing applications.
2 replies →