See, here’s the big open secret. All these politicians, who make all these rules? They don’t have a clue what they’re talking about. They think a kernel is something that gets stuck in your teeth whrn you eat corn.
Linux being a kernel is hardly relevant though. The law lies the responsibility at the “operating system providers”, looking at the definition in the article that would be the developers/organisation behind the individual distributions. Politicians don’t care if each distro comes up with their own solution or gets built-in to the kernel.
But personally I think they all just give this law the finger, put a ‘not for use in California’ in their licenses and forget about this brainfart.
Technically, Linux is not an operating system, just a kernel, so I’m not sure how this would be implemented.
See, here’s the big open secret. All these politicians, who make all these rules? They don’t have a clue what they’re talking about. They think a kernel is something that gets stuck in your teeth whrn you eat corn.
That was a 5’19 kernel operating in my mouth, I swear.
But they do have a clue how laws work, and the element of fuzziness in who’s guilty is a beneficial effect.
That’s my guess. These people have no clue what they’re doing.
Most of them are old enough to remember when politics was invented.
Linux being a kernel is hardly relevant though. The law lies the responsibility at the “operating system providers”, looking at the definition in the article that would be the developers/organisation behind the individual distributions. Politicians don’t care if each distro comes up with their own solution or gets built-in to the kernel.
But personally I think they all just give this law the finger, put a ‘not for use in California’ in their licenses and forget about this brainfart.