I agree with you 100%. It is an *extremely* dumb law. But unfortunately, it's one that could affect us -- and all open source operating system projects, so at least we're not alone here.
I'm taking a "wait and see" approach for now. I don't live in California so I can't really reach out to a representative in California about this. I need to see what the new proposed changes will be. For example, the proposed edits to how they define an "operating system provider" are supposed to include "selling it for a fee." If they define "app store provider" along similar lines (selling items for a fee) then that would seem to exclude a network-aware package installer. But we don't know yet. In the meantime, I'm contacting my own state representatives to make sure they know to reject any similar bill if it gets proposed in my state. I recommend you do the same where you live. Jim On Sun, May 3, 2026 at 3:34 PM Victoria Crenshaw <[email protected]> wrote: > > i am quite upset on the mentioning removing of the software i did work > hard on improving honestly.. for some quite honestly dumb law that > politicians dont understand tech and it is a massive black flag for me > for more surveillance. It's annoying but if i need to modify fdnpkg16 > for freedos. i can, but we cannot do id verification in dos.. it is > quite ridiculous > > > i need a recap of this discussion for FDNPKG16, please. i need a short > hand info. because i deeply disagree with these laws because freedos > dont really have anything obscene in it. it is just more surveillance. > On 4/27/26 7:28 PM, Jim Hall via Freedos-devel wrote: > > I've been following the age-verification laws, since that has an > > impact on any open source operating system project (potentially > > including FreeDOS). I wanted to share a few updates: > > [..] > > Specifically, the proposed changes include wording that changes who is > > an 'operating system provider' to someone who sells or supplies the > > operating system for a fee. If they go forward with the proposed > > changes, FreeDOS (as an operating system) should be exempted from > > AB-1043. > > > > However, the changes to AB-1043 still have some language about 'app > > stores' that bothers me. The way they seem to define this *could* > > include a mechanism or app that downloads and installs programs from a > > central repository. To me, that "smells" like any network-aware > > package manager that can download programs from a repository and > > install them. > > > > Specifically, that sounds too close to FDNPKG and FDNPKG16. > > > > I will definitely be following this one very closely. But we might > > consider removing FDNPKG/FDNPKG16 from the FreeDOS distribution if > > California makes the changes to the "operating system" part of the > > law, but doesn't change the "app store" part of the law. > > > > That also suggests we should start moving toward a "FreeDOS 1.5" > > distribution, to be released before the end of 2026, with any changes > > that will exclude us from the age-verification laws. We can discuss > > "FreeDOS 1.5" in a separate email thread, not this one. [..] _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
