Re: California law CA AB1043

> The key there would turn on jurisdiction; the project (unless its changed) is not incorporated in California (Colorado I believe) as a 501(c)(3) and operates under Section 509 (private foundations.)

fwiw, some Colorado lawmakers are trying to push through a similar
bill (SB26-051):

https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/SB26-051

(and it's written in all-caps, so you know it's serious ;))

Although I don't know if FreeBSD's pkg repos count as a "covered
application store", both in SB26-051 or CA AB1043, and their
definition is a little difficult for me to understand (what is a "host
application"?). And ianal of course.

On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 at 20:41, Karl Denninger <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 2/26/2026 14:01, Lucas Holt wrote:
>
>
> On 2/26/26 1:48 PM, Tomek CEDRO wrote:
>
> How about refusing to bend to bureaucratic tyranny and respond with
> ban from the Open-Source side in such cases right from start? Give
> them finger and they will take the whole hand next.. unless it's the
> middle finger and blessing to build their communist utopia on their
> own. They can steal what is free but they cannot force us to work for
> them for free. Whole Open-Source community should stand united and
> strong against this nonsense.
>
> They for sure know reaction of the free crowd, and they have already
> planned some sort of business behind this. We are their asset, and our
> consent. Do not consent.
>
> Let thinking people leave and see what happens next. Socialism turns
> communism when there is no more other people money and there is no
> food left. We had that in Eastern Europe, but some people need to feel
> on their own four letters.
>
> I'm not sure what that would even look like.  Do we make a new modified BSD license that includes a clause preventing the use of software in any jurisdiction with similar age verification laws?  If a developer is outside the US, they can probably just ignore this. Inside the US, without a clause banning use, I am concerned that I or say the freebsd foundation could be sued or fined by the state of California.
>
> Its not all that difficult to blackball any IP that geolocates from California.  In fact porn sites do that now in certain states (you can't connect to Pornhub from Tennessee, for example; it comes up with a "screw you" screen -- pun intended -- as Tennessee has an age-verification law for adult web sites they refuse to comply with.)  There are very reasonably-priced databases updated on a contemporary basis which provide that service.
>
> Of course this doesn't stop someone from sneakernet-ing a USB stick, using a VPN that is from somewhere else or similar, but then said entity is the distributor, not the project.  The key there would turn on jurisdiction; the project (unless its changed) is not incorporated in California (Colorado I believe) as a 501(c)(3) and operates under Section 509 (private foundations.)
>
> Off the top of my head the alleged requirements look like a nearly-impossible problem for the project never mind that once you bend the knee once here in this case the demands will escalate, including from non-US entities.  Consenting to jurisdiction, incidentally, is not something easily-revoked (in many cases its impossible) once you do so either.
>
> There are already other instances of this happening in the commercial space.
>
> 1798.500(g) says:
>
> (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.
>
> "Controls" does not apply since it can be redistributed and there is no "entity" that holds a license (since the MIT license is non-exclusive in all respects.)  Nor is "develops" an identifiable entity to which jurisdiction can attach in a public open-source system where anyone can submit improves, pathches, code and similar.  Therefore it is likely that interpretation would turn on who distributes in a given case, thus blackballing all IPs that geolocate to California would appear to me to be a very effective middle finger especially if coupled with an explicit written refusal in the Release Documentation (or on request to go there via the web, etc from said golocation) -- the project explicitly disavows any such use however it cannot (due to the MIT license) actually prohibit use.  The project CAN refuse distribution however and that demonstrates clear intent.
>
> 1798.501(a) is very close to impossible to enforce in an open-source system never mind 1798.502 which attempts to affirmatively require same even though no update has been made voluntarily -- that is, to enforce an update, which the FreeBSD project has never done nor has it any existing way to do so with current installations.  If I never run "git pull", "pkg upgrade" or "freebsd-update" as an administrator then what?
>
> While the project ultimately has to deal with this I would argue the only reasonable response is "Bite me!" to any request to project servers coming out of California.
>
> If this leads to a "California FreeBSD fork" then so be it; that wouldn't be the first one.
>
> Note: IANAL but have run a corporation before and did send a photocopy of my bare ass in response to a demand letter (after receiving advice of counsel that, as I analyzed, they had no jurisdiction) when, absent jurisdiction, I was unwilling to comply with.
>
> --
> Karl Denninger
> [email protected]
> The Market Ticker
> [S/MIME encrypted email preferred]