The bill only covers operating systems which integrate with cloud services. The bill is designed to target what it calls “addictive” feeds and services. Linux distros don’t appear to be in scope. Yet again cm0002 is demonstrating an inability to read the actual sources.
I don’t get where you get that from. If I understand the article correctly, there are no exemptions for open source…
Tap for spoiler
Open source exemption where?
Illinois isn’t the first state to try this model. Colorado’s SB26-051 and California’s AB-1043 both rely on the same OS-level age signal setup; apps request it, and the device answers.
Both of these started off without any concessions for open source platforms (e.g., Linux).
Colorado’s SB26-051 originally applied to every operating system and developer without exception. System76 founder Carl Richell worked directly with state lawmakers to change that.
The bill picked up language exempting operating systems and developers distributing software under terms that let anyone copy, redistribute, and modify it freely. It also added a clause blocking platforms from locking down modified versions.
California’s AB-1043 had the same gap. Assembly Member Buffy Wicks, the same lawmaker who wrote AB-1043, introduced AB-1856 to fix it. After several rounds of edits, the amended bill redefines “operating system provider” to exclude anyone distributing software under those same open license terms.
Illinois has none of this. HB5511’s definitions for “covered manufacturer” and “application store” stay just as broad as these bills were before their amendments.
I had been following 5511 for awhile but lost sight of it. was this added just before it was vetted? From my own analysis (at the time) it was targeting all OSs generically.
The bill only covers operating systems which integrate with cloud services. The bill is designed to target what it calls “addictive” feeds and services. Linux distros don’t appear to be in scope. Yet again cm0002 is demonstrating an inability to read the actual sources.
I don’t get where you get that from. If I understand the article correctly, there are no exemptions for open source…
Tap for spoiler
Open source exemption where?
Illinois isn’t the first state to try this model. Colorado’s SB26-051 and California’s AB-1043 both rely on the same OS-level age signal setup; apps request it, and the device answers.
Both of these started off without any concessions for open source platforms (e.g., Linux).
Colorado’s SB26-051 originally applied to every operating system and developer without exception. System76 founder Carl Richell worked directly with state lawmakers to change that.
The bill picked up language exempting operating systems and developers distributing software under terms that let anyone copy, redistribute, and modify it freely. It also added a clause blocking platforms from locking down modified versions.
California’s AB-1043 had the same gap. Assembly Member Buffy Wicks, the same lawmaker who wrote AB-1043, introduced AB-1856 to fix it. After several rounds of edits, the amended bill redefines “operating system provider” to exclude anyone distributing software under those same open license terms.
Illinois has none of this. HB5511’s definitions for “covered manufacturer” and “application store” stay just as broad as these bills were before their amendments.
I had been following 5511 for awhile but lost sight of it. was this added just before it was vetted? From my own analysis (at the time) it was targeting all OSs generically.