this post was submitted on 14 May 2026
362 points (99.5% liked)

Linux

17484 readers
87 users here now

Welcome to c/linux!

Welcome to our thriving Linux community! Whether you're a seasoned Linux enthusiast or just starting your journey, we're excited to have you here. Explore, learn, and collaborate with like-minded individuals who share a passion for open-source software and the endless possibilities it offers. Together, let's dive into the world of Linux and embrace the power of freedom, customization, and innovation. Enjoy your stay and feel free to join the vibrant discussions that await you!

Rules:

  1. Stay on topic: Posts and discussions should be related to Linux, open source software, and related technologies.

  2. Be respectful: Treat fellow community members with respect and courtesy.

  3. Quality over quantity: Share informative and thought-provoking content.

  4. No spam or self-promotion: Avoid excessive self-promotion or spamming.

  5. No NSFW adult content

  6. Follow general lemmy guidelines.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world
362
How Linux developers defeated the new OS age-verification laws (blazetrends.com)
submitted 1 day ago by Lisk91@sh.itjust.works to c/linux@lemmy.world
42 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The coordinated effort worked. When lawmakers finalized Colorado SB26-051, they added Section 6-30-105(e) to the text. This specific clause waives compliance for operating systems and applications distributed under licenses that allow copying, modifying, and redistributing without platform-imposed technical restrictions. Why the Section 6-30-105(e) Exemption Protects Decentralized Tech

This exemption establishes a formal legislative precedent for the tech industry. It legally shields free and open-source operating systems from hardware-level age attestation laws that closed ecosystems like iOS and Windows will soon have to follow.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] badgermurphy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm not in a GPDR jurisdiction, but if memory serves, is there not some clause preventing service providers for compelling me to "willingly" provide information to access the service, similar to a "duress" situation?

[โ€“] FishFace@piefed.social 2 points 1 day ago

There is something like that but I'm not sure it really has the force we all wanted it to. I don't know if it's been tested in court yet, but the optimistic people thought it would ban any kind of "be tracked or else you have to pay", but I believe a lot of services are operating exactly this way.