March 3, 2026
California vs. the download button
California's Digital Age Assurance Act, and FOSS
Download drama: devs call age-check law “a mess” while others joke “Not for California”
TLDR: A new California law could treat Linux-style distributions and their app hubs like app stores that need age checks, sparking outrage and jokes. Commenters split between “unworkable law,” “free software must resist,” and “just block California,” highlighting a global community scrambling over a state rule that could reshape how open software is shared.
California’s new Digital Age Assurance Act — AB-1043 — just sent the open‑source world into a comment‑section thunderstorm. The article argues the law is so broad it could treat Linux-style distributions as operating system providers and their package hubs as app stores, with projects and packagers counted as “developers.” Translation: volunteer-run software repos like Flathub might have to bolt on age checks and warning screens — a nightmare for communities that give everything away for free.
The crowd’s verdict? Chaos. Top comment: “This is a mess.” One camp says it’s unworkable across the board, pointing out muddy ideas like who the “primary owner” of a device is and how “app store” means wildly different things depending on the platform. Another camp goes full rebel: one user declares “Stallman was right,” warning this is exactly why free software must resist government‑pushed “anti‑features” like age gates and backdoors. Meanwhile, the realists are already meme‑ing a workaround: slap a “Not for use in California” sticker on download pages and call it a day. In short, it’s part legal panic, part philosophy fight, and part gallows humor — with Flathub and friends caught in the crossfire and everyone wondering how a global, volunteer software ecosystem is supposed to follow a state law.
Key Points
- •The article analyzes how California’s Digital Age Assurance Act (AB-1043) could apply to FOSS distributions and repositories.
- •Traditional FOSS distributions may qualify as “operating system providers” under §1798.500(g).
- •Distribution-operated repositories may plausibly be “covered application stores” under §1798.500(e)(1), with platforms like Flathub cited as examples.
- •Upstream FOSS projects and intermediaries who package or patch software may be considered “developers” due to broad “owns, maintains, or controls” language.
- •Statutory exceptions are narrow and do not clearly exclude ordinary distro repositories; compliance may be difficult or infeasible for FOSS actors.