Re: California law CA AB1043

BSD license already disclaims any legal responsibility, no? I.e use the code and leave us alone? Or was it a 4-clause ?

On Thu, Feb 26, 2026, at 4:18 PM, Mark Millard wrote:
> On 2/26/26 13:57, Cy Schubert wrote:
> > In message <[email protected]>, Mark Millard 
> > write
> > s:
> >> On 2/26/26 07:12, Lucas Holt wrote:
> >>> California is requiring age verification checks for account creation at
> >>> the OS level with a signal API to provide information to applications in
> >>> 2027.  They explicitly call out individual developers or companies with
> >>> fines of 2500 dollars per child affected.
> >>>
> >>> I wondered if anyone has started looking into this on the FreeBSD side. 
> >>> The way I read this, we would need to implement changes when creating
> >>> accounts, provide a mechanism to check from apps (library), and provide
> >>> support within package managers to filter apps?  Then browsers would
> >>> need to implement this and call the respective OS APIs for age
> >>> verification for desktop use.
> >>>
> >>> It seems like it makes sense for multiple *NIX systems to implement a
> >>> similar mechanism across platforms.
> >>>
> >>> The paragraph near the bottom seems to indicate that it wouldn't apply
> >>> to server use since indirect signals aren't required to be honored.
> >>>
> >>> For reference:
> >>>
> >>> https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1043/id/3269704
> >>>
> >>
> >> Hmm. 1798.500(e)(1) [and (2)] would appear to make port-package
> >> distribution of "Application" (but plural) a "Covered application
> >> store". At the moment I do not see how the FreeBSD port-package
> >> distribution mechanism would fit into this in its current form. It would
> >> seem to require accounts to be involved for all "Account holder" (but
> >> plural), for example. The "operating system provider" has to require
> >> account setup to indicate age information for the "user" (such as a
> >> child) and has to provide secure access to the information "when the
> >> application is downloaded and launched".
> > 
> > Before jumping to any conclusions I think we ought to look at what 
> > companies like Red Hat and Canonical are doing in this space.
> 
> I made not have made it clear, but I was not intending more than a
> heads-up for folks like, say, core that would likely need to decide on
> the implications of the actual law (if any) for the context at hand. The
> referenced legal text was enough that I thought it justified that much
> (and not more).
> 
> I did use "would appear", "would seem", and "may be" (below) indicating
> that my preliminary read need not be definitive. At best it is a valid
> prompt for appropriate folks to look for themselves. That may well
> involve checking what the wider environment's examples like Red Hat
> conclude.
> 
> Other than this note, I do not plan any more contribution to the subject
> area on any lists, whatever is done or not done.
> 
> > 
> >>
> >> Since the FreeBSD OS includes applications and the means to download
> >> optional applications that are also part of the OS, there may be similar
> >> issues for it (relative to itself) as far as I an tell.
> >>
> >> The title does not apply to:
> >>
> >> ) broadband internet access service (Section 3100)
> >> ) telecommunication service (Section 153 of Title 4 of the US code)
> >> ) Delivery or use of a physical product
> >>
> >> But I doubt that such applies.
> >>
> >> There are time constraints that I'll not get into but would seem to be a
> >> problem.
> >>
> >> -- 
> >> ===
> >> Mark Millard
> >> marklmi at yahoo.com
> >>
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ===
> Mark Millard
> marklmi at yahoo.com
> 
>