2026-04-24 15:58 UTC
Replies (8)
-
@carlrichell@fosstodon.org 2026-04-24 15:58
There are more steps but we're on our way to protecting the open source community, at least in CO.
-
@claudiom@bsd.network 2026-04-24 16:51
@carlrichell Citation missing, so here is the amendment: https://legiscan.com/CO/amendment/SB051/id/296180
-
@paranormal_distribution@fosstodon.org 2026-04-24 20:43
@carlrichell Right in the feels, man. I know you probably get this a lot this right now, but you're the GOAT for your work on this issue!
-
@bzdev@fosstodon.org 2026-04-24 23:45
@carlrichell Thanks, Carl! BTW (and this has to be run past a lawyer), is there still a problem with software distributed under a GPL, which requires that software that uses GPL-licensed code be open source as well? It depends on how broadly the word "restriction" is taken.
-
@mirabilos@toot.mirbsd.org 2026-04-25 00:40
@carlrichell the systemd et al. people will be angry now that they reduced their cred for nothing. Oh wait.
-
@schroedingerspossum@mastodon.social 2026-04-25 16:11
@carlrichell that's great news, thank you for talking to the legislators there
-
@wwahammy@social.treehouse.systems 2026-04-26 02:00
@carlrichell while I appreciate this, it's not enough to only give ourselves freedom. No one should be a victim of these laws.
-
@riverpunk@defcon.social 2026-04-26 21:05
@carlrichell hmm, so under this law, would the GPL and other viral licenses be considered open source? After all, it _does_ place restrictions on modification (namely, if you modify and publish the binary output, you also have to publish the modified source code).