Mastodon Feed
Boosted by jwz:
wwahammy@treehouse.systems ("Eric Schultz") wrote:
RE: https://social.treehouse.systems/@wwahammy/116264430375745593
I want everyone who says "this is the law, distros need to comply" I want you to explain a plausible set of circumstances to lead to the following:
* That the AG of California will sue a random Linux distro which has effectively no money
* Prove who the OS distributor actually is (is it the committers? Committers of what part? Their bank account with $12 in it?)
* Prove by preponderance of the evidence how many children used the OS in order to set the fines
* get a judge and jury to think this isn't a massive waste of their time
* That it isn't just a violation of the law but is a "negligent" or "intentional" violation
* all the while, the OS maker and everyone else having effectively zero knowledge of who uses it since there's no continuing relationship with users.How does all of this happen?