• aurelar@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    12 hours ago

    Technically, Linux is not an operating system, just a kernel, so I’m not sure how this would be implemented.

    • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      51
      ·
      edit-2
      12 hours ago

      See, here’s the big open secret. All these politicians, who make all these rules? They don’t have a clue what they’re talking about. They think a kernel is something that gets stuck in your teeth whrn you eat corn.

      • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 hours ago

        But they do have a clue how laws work, and the element of fuzziness in who’s guilty is a beneficial effect.

      • db2@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Most of them are old enough to remember when politics was invented.

    • Damage@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      10 hours ago

      You just said it, it’s a rule for operating systems, which means that whoever ships Linux as part of an operating system has the onus of implementing this.

      If you do Linux from scratch, that would be you I guess.

    • Aganim@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Linux being a kernel is hardly relevant though. The law lies the responsibility at the “operating system providers”, looking at the definition in the article that would be the developers/organisation behind the individual distributions. Politicians don’t care if each distro comes up with their own solution or gets built-in to the kernel.

      But personally I think they all just give this law the finger, put a ‘not for use in California’ in their licenses and forget about this brainfart.