CO SB26-051 has passed, but open source operating systems and applications are not required to comply under the current text
Posted by aphilentus@reddit | linux | View on Reddit | 17 comments
From the final passed document:
6-30-105. Applicability - limitations.
(3) THIS ARTICLE 30 DOES NOT APPLY TO:
...
(e) AN OPERATING SYSTEM PROVIDER OR DEVELOPER THAT DISTRIBUTES AN OPERATING SYSTEM OR APPLICATION UNDER LICENSE TERMS THAT PERMIT A RECIPIENT TO COPY, REDISTRIBUTE, AND MODIFY THE SOFTWARE WITHOUT ANY PLATFORM-IMPOSED TECHNICAL OR CONTRACTUAL RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY THE PROVIDER OR DEVELOPER ON INSTALLING
ALL MODIFIED VERSIONS.
CrazyKilla15@reddit
What does without any contractual restrictions even mean?
Wouldnt it mean almost no license is actually excluded, no even MIT because it requires attribution?
djao@reddit
The GPL is not a contract. A contract requires a signature. The GPL is a license.
CrazyKilla15@reddit
Is that an actual specific legal requirement to be called "contractual"?
djao@reddit
Yes. The GPL is a license, not a contract. Says so right in the name. General Public License.
CrazyKilla15@reddit
You can just say you have no idea. In law words mean very specific things that depend on other law, court precedent, and are state specific. They can mean very different things than one would think from the common "layman's" definition.
djao@reddit
OK, let's look specifically at Colorado law, since that is the topic of this post.
Under Colorado law:
([source])(https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2025-02/Chapter%2030.pdf)
Now let's look at the GPL:
([source])(https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html)
Since the GPL does not require acceptance, it cannot be a contract under Colorado law.
h00rayforstuff@reddit
Hey I actually am licensed in Colorado! Very rare this is useful on the internet, so I’m taking this shot.
First, a license is not a contract. A license is just permission to use (in this case intellectual) property.
The thing that makes this open and shut not a contract is there is no consideration. In legal terms consideration basically means what are you getting. So if I buy a license, I’m entering into a contract with the seller where I give them money, and I get a license. The money and license are the consideration in that example.
So when using software under a GPL you aren’t giving anything up and the other party isn’t getting anything from you. Easily no contract.
CrazyKilla15@reddit
You're giving up the right to distribute binaries without source, and the other party is getting your modifications source code. Source code obviously has value, and keeping it closed-source vs being required to make it public obviously does as well?
bvierra@reddit
A license is permission to use another party's property (intellectual or physical) without owning it, whereas a contract is a broader, binding agreement between parties, often exchanging promises or services. A license agreement is a specific type of contract, but a license can exist simply as unilateral permission.
CrazyKilla15@reddit
If a license is a type of contract then that re-opens the question of whether its restrictions are legally considered "CONTRACTUAL RESTRICTIONS", does it not?
Mother-Pride-Fest@reddit
Hooray! Great example that I hope other states can follow.
Ok-Winner-6589@reddit
What? No. Nobody should be asked for their ID it's not relevant if it's open source or not.
They are probably gona include android which is open source and changing the OS on your phone is almost impossible (or just impossible for some devices)
Mother-Pride-Fest@reddit
This carves out exemption for open source. Yes, it would be better if we didn't have the law at all, I am celebrating this legally protected way to opt out.
aliendude5300@reddit
If we can get the same exceptions in the California one before it takes effect I'll be so happy
algaefied_creek@reddit
Write your reps, the governor, and file a complaint with the AG (ok that one is a stretch)
tenchigaeshi@reddit
Utterly batshit that this passed
aphilentus@reddit (OP)
I'm so sorry y'all, this might be a repost. I did check before I posted, but I only looked at the first 5 results or so in my search. It seems this may have been discussed previously.
I mostly wanted to post since I wasn't sure if the community knew; Ageless Linux for example hasn't updated their site yet.
Additional threads here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1suleau/strong_open_source_exemptions_to_co_sb51_have/
https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1syhob3/in_contact_about_colorados_new_ageverification/