Ageless Linux is a new project with an unconventional goal even by open-source standards. Instead of offering technical innovations, it serves as a platform for protest against emerging age-verification regulations that may affect operating systems and software distribution.
Right off the bat, one thing needs to be clear: Ageless Linux, based on Debian, is not a traditional distribution. It is just a minor modification applied to an existing Debian installation.
Users install Debian, then run a script from the project that rebrands the system as Ageless Linux and applies a few changes reflecting the project’s legal position. That’s it.
Imagine having to do an age check when you sftp up data to your linux server 💀
based on Debian
Saw this coming.
California’s mandatory age verification law is batshit insane, but what does this script actually do?
It feels like maybe a few dozen or a couple hundred actual californians will run this script and literally zero impact or notice will come to the attention of anyone in the California legal or political system.
Even if some fictional cybercop finds out that Joe Schmo is rebelling against the system by running this script on their single board computer, what does the maintainer of this script want to happen?
What are they expecting? What is the goal? What is the point? What tangible result is expected?
It keeps people talking about it.
Sometimes that’s all the point there is.
The point is to create an unambiguous defendant for a court case to challenge the constitutionality of the law.
The messed-up thing about judicial review is that you can’t just go “hey I think this law is invalid”, you need someone to charge you under the law first.
Their website is actually really good and well worth a read. It is both funny and poignant.
To quote their “why”:
Q: What is the point of all this? There are two points.
The first is that AB 1043’s definitions are so broad that a bash script and a static website can create a regulated operating system. A law that cannot distinguish between Apple Inc. and a shell script has a drafting problem. A law that sweeps in 600+ volunteer Linux distributions was not written with them in mind. A law that was not written with them in mind but regulates them anyway is not a careful law.
The second is that this law was never meant to be enforced against everyone it covers. It was meant to be enforced selectively. The large platform companies already comply. The small ones can’t. The Attorney General has sole enforcement discretion. A law that gives a single office the power to selectively impose $7,500-per-child fines against any operating system distributor in the state — while ensuring that only the largest corporations can avoid liability — is not a child safety measure. It is a tool for selective prosecution. The children are the justification. The discretion is the product.
We are trying to make the selective part difficult. If the AG wants to enforce AB 1043, we would like to be first in line. We are a clear violation. We are documented. We are findable. We are daring them. If the law is worth enforcing, enforce it against us. If it is not worth enforcing against us, ask why it exists.
So, like a Devuan but done right?
