Colorado Adds Open-Source Exemption to Age-Verification Bill

iamnothere

It’s still not good that these bills are setting the expectation that speech can be compelled. “You must add this sentence to the foreword of all books you write, unless you use the CC0 license” would still be an unconstitutional infringement of free speech even though it exempts authors who use a free license. Given the current broad assault on civil liberties, though, I’ll take any small victories we can get.

throwaway85825

Meta is behind this.

userbinator

Open, closed, doesn't matter. Just say no.

kelseyfrog

Propose a workable alternative for parents and then we'll talk.

ranger_danger

"Does not apply to operating systems under terms that permit a recipient to ... modify the software without restriction" That sounds like it doesn't even apply to most open-source licenses, since they usually do have some restrictions, like not being able to change the license without permission of all authors, or removing authors' credits, plus you have to display the license to the user etc., IANAL but perhaps those could all be interpreted as "restrictions" that make it not eligible for exemption.

homo__sapiens

Zuck is a fake geek

zzo38computer

I think a open-source exemption would be acceptable (if done properly; another comment mentions a possible problem), even though I would think it would be preferable to not have such age-verification bills at all. At least, adding the exemption would be second best, which would be better than having the age-verification bills without a open-source exemption. (As another comment says, it is still not good, but at least it is something.)

shrubble

It is not trustworthy full stop. A simple amendment passed the next year can change it.