It’s hard enough trying to get Linux adoption in schools and businesses. This law makes it an additional liability.
Administrators of FOSS systems will be considered OS Providers under this law, and will be liable at $2000 to $7500 for every child they expose to a non-compliant OS.
Those few schools that have adopted Linux will be forced to switch to M$ and Google products.
You keep saying that, but nothing about it is carved out specifically one way or the other for FOSS. As it is worded, any network sysadmin is considered the “OS Provider” exactly the same under Windows or Linux as they “control the operating system software on a computer”. They don’t “develop” or “license” the software in either case, windows or Linux. They control the OS the same amount under either windows or Linux.
Maybe it could be argued they are more likely to choose windows since the people developing and licensing the software are a big corporation and is therefore more likely to be compliant? But it isn’t like Canonical and RedHat are just some guy in a basement - these are commercial entities developing and licensing software just like Microsoft.
I agree the definitions in this bill are absolutely insane - the idea that the developer, licensor, and administrator of a computer’s OS would ever be the same person is astronomically unlikely. Maybe they mean something different by “control”, but it isn’t defined so that makes it up to the courts to decide with no direction.
It’s hard enough trying to get Linux adoption in schools and businesses. This law makes it an additional liability.
Administrators of FOSS systems will be considered OS Providers under this law, and will be liable at $2000 to $7500 for every child they expose to a non-compliant OS.
Those few schools that have adopted Linux will be forced to switch to M$ and Google products.
You keep saying that, but nothing about it is carved out specifically one way or the other for FOSS. As it is worded, any network sysadmin is considered the “OS Provider” exactly the same under Windows or Linux as they “control the operating system software on a computer”. They don’t “develop” or “license” the software in either case, windows or Linux. They control the OS the same amount under either windows or Linux.
Maybe it could be argued they are more likely to choose windows since the people developing and licensing the software are a big corporation and is therefore more likely to be compliant? But it isn’t like Canonical and RedHat are just some guy in a basement - these are commercial entities developing and licensing software just like Microsoft.
I agree the definitions in this bill are absolutely insane - the idea that the developer, licensor, and administrator of a computer’s OS would ever be the same person is astronomically unlikely. Maybe they mean something different by “control”, but it isn’t defined so that makes it up to the courts to decide with no direction.