Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

My gut reaction to this is that there is something seriously wrong if special clauses are required. Why should open source get special treatment, to me that just highlights that the law is utterly ridiculous.


Technically opensource stays the same. The special treatment is for closed source OSes that get an additional legal protection for their datamining. We should not be passing laws that legalize the datamining of people.


It’s about to get so much worse before we get any kind of meaningful change for the better. Buckle up


Empty cynicism adds no value.


Why shouldn't open source get special treatment? Public laws should recognize and incentivize public goods.


If it's good that an OS isn't doing age verification, why are there even age verification laws?


Who gets to decide which operating systems have provided a public good? What criteria? I want the law to apply equally.


Me. If I develop an OS and release it for free public use, I've provided a public good.


One of the problems with the original law is that it failed to distinguish between open source projects and closed source products. If anything this amendment should make the law less objectionable, not more.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: