On Sunday, 8 March 2026 at 20:14, Polarian <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hey, Hi, > > > If Arch is forced to comply, the MidnightBSD path looks great to me. > > As I explained in my former email, banning a group of people from a > open source project makes the project nonfree (aka not open source!). I failed to see that. I am so sorry about that. Then, the next option would be to hope that this law is changed so that operating systems (distros) like Arch are not impacted. I will be looking forward to that. Because as someone already said it here, the law may even mandate real time operating systems to comply. > > MidnightBSD is no longer open source software, nor is it free software, > as they have removed the licence grant to Californians excluding them. > Both free software and open source software require EVERYONE to have > the same licence grant, without excluding any groups of people. > > Please do not endorse making Arch Linux nonfree, thanks! Trust me, my intention was not that, but it then came out like that. Maybe some workaround for Californians so that Arch is not impacted for them? > > Take care, > -- > Polarian > Jabber/XMPP: [email protected] >
publickey - [email protected] - 0xB19E4C73.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
