Hello, all, On 2026-03-08 19:08:19, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
...you can also take a positive view of the path MidnightBSD is taking. Of course, they are not seriously excluding Californians. See, MidnightBSD isn't really restricting freedom. They are giving Californians the opportunity to decide for themselves and are preventing any unpleasantness.
When I first mentioned the MidnightBSD stance, this is exactly what I was alluding to. I probably should have worded that better...
I have no idea whether such a clause would allow you to evade the law. As a budding honorary lawyer, I would suggest structuring the license in a way that is "salvatorius".
I do see value in this, though I would want to get an actual practicing California lawyer on this just to be sure.
On 2026-03-08 18:27:00, Shaurya Anand wrote:
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.
The law is absolutely written in a broad enough way to include realtime OS's. From the way I read it, it could even include OS's specifically built for the server market. As for changing the law... That would require a tonne of lobbying, and enough signatures from California/Oklahoma residents in their own petitions to make it work. Is it possible for this type of thing to be organised? Maybe, idk though.
On Sunday, 8 March 2026 at 20:14, Polarian<[email protected]> wrote: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?
I need to also address this one, too. I was the one who initially mentioned them, and I also did not intend for endorsing making Arch nonfree. I, among many others, am heavily advocating for free/libre software as much as I can.
On 2026-03-08 06:48:25, Shaurya Anand wrote:
I don't think Arch is ever going to comply. There is no way this law should apply to such DIY Linux distros, like Gentoo, or server distros.
I think the sticky situation arises when people use Archinstall[0] to install Arch onto their systems. Wouldn't this count as an installer that takes those specific installs from being a DIY Distro into being the type actually concerned with the law? If so, how can compliance (or "compliance") be met without breaking the terms of the GPLv3?
Parents should parent their children, not the government.
Unfortunately, this is what the whole world is coming to. It's starting to look like nowhere is safe from governments trying to intervene in this way.
On 2026-03-08 02:45:16, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Everything I have to say now is 100% political and has nothing to do with Arch Linux. Nevertheless, I would like to point out one thing: it is impossible to obey the laws of one country without violating the laws of another. Every morning when I wake up, I wonder what new political nonsense has been added overnight. Political age barriers are an issue in themselves. I would like to point the finger at other nations, but unfortunately I am a citizen of a country that started two world wars and is one of the few countries in the world that still recruits soldiers under the age of 18. The politician who fully supports an army including minors is the politician with the highest approval ratings in my country. Therefore, I would rather hold back when it comes to another country that believes that every operating system must register its users and verify their age.
This is all political, unfortunate as it may be. It still warrants discussion though, especially if it affects the direction of the distro (that I assume) we all love and use.
-Adam [0]: https://github.com/archlinux/archinstall
OpenPGP_0x03BD89C61AEAAD44.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
