You are right that operating system is not defined. But the definition of operating system provider is this: “(g) “Operating system provider” means a person or entity that develops, licenses, or controls the operating system software on a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device.” (emphasis mine)
But embedded computing devices these days are regularly general computing devices, and have been for a long time. If my insert appliance x with an ARM processor isn’t a general computing device, then why is my raspberry pi?
That is not something I had considered, I fully agree.
So many devices are built around SBCs running linux. I guess my first thought was that it is more about how the device is used and not what that actual OS is. But then how would the OS even be able to tell the difference.
This is a distinction that they should have spelled out explicitly in the law.
I mean sure, if you ignore the 2 words just before what you quoted.
“distributes and facilitates the download of applications from third-party developers”.
I don’t know that I would consider curl as “distributing” software. But as always it depends on how the court interprets it.
Full section for context:
(e) (1) “Covered application store” means a publicly available internet website, software application, online service, or platform that distributes and facilitates the download of applications from third-party developers to users of a computer, a mobile device, or any other general purpose computing that can access a covered application store or can download an application.
(2) “Covered application store” does not mean an online service or platform that distributes extensions, plug-ins, add-ons, or other software applications that run exclusively within a separate host application.
So define Operating System. Are embedded systems Operating Systems? Coz that’s going to cast a rather wide net.
Selective enforcement. Basically if they want to do shit to you they will prosecute you, otherwise they won’t bother.
I can’t wait for my microwave to ask me to take off my glasses, face the camera, and turn my head slowly from left to right.
You are right that operating system is not defined. But the definition of operating system provider is this: “(g) “Operating system provider” means a person or entity that develops, licenses, or controls the operating system software on a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device.” (emphasis mine)
Which should clearly exclude embedded devices.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1043
But embedded computing devices these days are regularly general computing devices, and have been for a long time. If my insert appliance x with an ARM processor isn’t a general computing device, then why is my raspberry pi?
Need a face scan to use my fridge
That is not something I had considered, I fully agree.
So many devices are built around SBCs running linux. I guess my first thought was that it is more about how the device is used and not what that actual OS is. But then how would the OS even be able to tell the difference.
This is a distinction that they should have spelled out explicitly in the law.
They basically defined curl as an app store: “facilitates the download of applications”
I mean sure, if you ignore the 2 words just before what you quoted.
I don’t know that I would consider curl as “distributing” software. But as always it depends on how the court interprets it.
Full section for context:
good lord, not even the solar powered four-function calculators are safe!