I had a read into this myself and grok and got this.. It's only something to consider..
**FreeDOS** (a free, open-source DOS-compatible operating system) and similar legacy or niche GPL-licensed projects like **FDNPKG** (the FreeDOS package manager) fall into a gray area under California's **AB 1043** (Digital Age Assurance Act), but the law's broad wording technically sweeps them in—with very limited practical impact or enforceability. ### Key Reasons from the Law's Text The bill defines an "**operating system provider**" extremely broadly as: > “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.” - FreeDOS is openly developed and distributed by a community (no single commercial entity "controls" it in the way Microsoft controls Windows). - FDNPKG is just a package manager tool within that ecosystem, not an OS itself. - There's **no exemption** listed for open-source software, legacy systems, small projects, non-commercial developers, or systems without modern "account setup" features. The requirements kick in for providers who must: - Offer an "**accessible interface at account setup**" prompting for the user's birth date/age. - Supply a real-time API/signal for age brackets to apps/developers upon request. FreeDOS (and most DOS derivatives) **doesn't have user accounts**, graphical setup wizards, or any built-in "account creation" process—it's a single-user, boot-and-run system from the MS-DOS era. There's no central place to implement this "interface," and no mechanism for apps to query an age signal (since modern app ecosystems don't exist there anyway). ### Practical Reality and Community Discussion - Discussions in tech forums (e.g., Linux/BSD communities, Hacker News, Reddit) highlight this absurdity for niche/open-source OSes like FreeDOS, DOSBox emulators, Haiku, or even minimal Linux distros without mandatory logins. - Some point out that if a user in California installs FreeDOS on hardware, the "controller" of the OS could arguably be the end-user themselves—but that's a stretch and unlikely to trigger enforcement. - Enforcement is **only by the California Attorney General** (no private lawsuits), with penalties up to $2,500–$7,500 per affected child for violations. Prosecuting volunteer FreeDOS maintainers over a 30+ year-old DOS reimplementation seems extremely improbable—especially since FreeDOS isn't distributing "apps" via any "covered application store" (another defined term in the bill). - The law targets modern general-purpose devices with app ecosystems (phones, PCs running Windows/macOS/Android/Linux distros with app stores). Legacy DOS-like systems don't fit that model. ### Bottom Line - **Technically applicable?** Yes—the definition is so wide it includes FreeDOS/FDNPKG maintainers or distributors. - **Realistic compliance needed?** Almost certainly not. No one expects FreeDOS to add a fake "age prompt" during boot (it would break compatibility and make no sense). Most commentary treats these cases as unintended overreach or unenforceable edge cases. - If you're running FreeDOS in California post-2027 (effective Jan 1, 2027), you're unlikely to face any issues. The law aims at big players like Apple, Google, Microsoft, and major Linux distros (which may need to adapt installers or add optional signals). Now it is important for me because I am developing deadseas for freedos which has an online game network feature pinezone which aims to provide an online service that is free for all dos users. Dos is an old dinosaur but as Mr brutman suggests what about the new c64.. Etc On Mon, Mar 2, 2026, 10:43 AM Jim Hall via Freedos-devel < [email protected]> wrote: > Some of you may have heard about this: > > California recently passed "AB-1043 Age verification signals: software > applications and online services" that is basically a "protect the > children" law. Here's a link to the full text: > > https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1043 > > I think it's dumb and overly broad, but we should talk about it. My > thoughts are at the end. > > I think a fair summary is: > > 1798.500 defines terms, including: > > :: (c) “Application” means a software application that may be run or > :: directed by a user on a computer, a mobile device, or any other general > :: purpose computing device that can access a covered application store or > :: download an application. > > :: (f) “Developer” means a person that owns, maintains, or controls > :: an application. > :: > :: (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. > > And: > > :: 1798.501 (a) An operating system provider shall do all of the following: > :: > :: (1) Provide an accessible interface at account setup that requires an > :: account holder to indicate the birth date, age, or both, of the user of > :: that device for the purpose of providing a signal regarding the user’s > :: age bracket to applications available in a covered application store. > :: > :: (2) Provide a developer who has requested a signal with respect to > :: a particular user with a digital signal via a reasonably consistent > :: real-time application programming interface that identifies, at > :: a minimum, which of the following categories pertains to the user: > :: > [they list age brackets] > :: > :: (3) Send only the minimum amount of information necessary to comply with > :: this title and shall not share the digital signal information with a > :: third party for a purpose not required by this title. > > 1798.501 (b) has requirements for developers, and also mentions an > "application store." > > And: > > :: 1798.502 (a) With respect to a device for which account setup was > :: completed before January 1, 2027, an operating system provider shall, > :: before July 1, 2027, provide an accessible interface that allows an > :: account holder to indicate the birth date, age, or both, of the user of > :: that device for the purpose of providing a signal regarding the user’s > :: age bracket to applications available in a covered application store. > :: > :: 1798.502 (b) If an application last updated with updates on or after > :: January 1, 2026, was downloaded to a device before January 1, 2027, > :: and the developer has not requested a signal with respect to the user of > :: the device on which the application was downloaded, the developer shall > :: request a signal from a covered application store with respect to that > :: user before July 1, 2027. > > 1798.503 sets penalties for violations. > > 1798.504 says the this isn't meant to "modify, impair, or supersede" > antitrust laws (i.e. operating system vendors with their own app > store) but also says: > > :: (f) This title does not apply to any of the following: > :: > :: (1) A broadband internet access service, as defined in Section 3100. > :: > :: (2) A telecommunications service, as defined in Section 153 of Title 47 > :: of the United States Code. > :: > :: (3) The delivery or use of a physical product. > > And: > > :: 1798.505. This title shall become operative on January 1, 2027. > > -- > > My thoughts: > > DOS was created long before the concept of an "app store" -- and DOS > has never had "accounts." My immediate impression is that this law > cannot apply to FreeDOS (or any DOS) because there's just no mechanism > to accommodate it. No DOS can: not MS-DOS, not DR DOS, not PC DOS, .. > no DOS can do this. Not to mention all the legacy DOS applications > from the 1980s and 1990s. > > It seems clear the law was intended for Windows and Mac. But that's > not how the law was written. As I said, I think it's dumb and overly > broad. > > I'm curious if anyone knows how (or if) other open source operating > systems are responding to this. I imagine the large Linux distros > (like Red Hat, Ubuntu, ..) have the resources behind them to do > something, but smaller distros will not. > > If this law is not amended before the end of the year, I suspect we'll > have a notice on the FreeDOS website in January that says something > like "Do not use if you live in California." > > > _______________________________________________ > Freedos-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel >
_______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
