Wayne Thornton commented on a discussion: https://gitlab.rtems.org/rtems/rtos/rtems/-/issues/5502#note_143551 I wouldn't disagree with you. The question I posed really revolves around the non-standard configurations and uses. Obviously in a medical or spaceflight scenario this wouldn't be a concern, but *should* a developer get the idea to use RTEMS for a more consumer-oriented device and build support for 3rd party applications, under the text of the law we would be liable for implementing the age verification APIs. The law dictates that the original OS developer bears primary responsibility, not the downstream developer/manufacturer/etc. I suppose I'm coming at this from a *VERY* strong compliance mindset in the vain of avoiding costly fines/litigation, regardless of the fact I disagree 100% with the law and will be doing everything to circumvent it on my personal systems. But I do wonder if it isn't helpful to at least have the discussion so a project-wide determination can be made whether to comply or whether we meet the exception and do not need to comply and to have a public statement regarding the same. California is, after all, very litigious and it makes sense to be proactive. -- View it on GitLab: https://gitlab.rtems.org/rtems/rtos/rtems/-/issues/5502#note_143551 You're receiving this email because of your account on gitlab.rtems.org.
_______________________________________________ bugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/bugs
