Stop it. This is not something either of you are competent to provide legal advice about. Anyone concerned about this should consult a licensed attorney, not get advice from randos on HN.
Anyone should be free to research, discuss, and try to understand the law for themselves. Lawyers do not own the law.
But if actually pulled into a courtroom, sure, get a lawyer.
This isn't mere research and discussion; it's suggesting an outcome (i.e., "you're safe[r]"). That crosses a line into advice.
> But if actually pulled into a courtroom, sure, get a lawyer.
By the time you get pulled into a courtroom, it is often far too late. The time to talk to an attorney is well before that, when you’re contemplating action. That is the main point I’ve been trying to make, and it seems you just don’t want to pay heed.
Yes, you've said multiple times that you're not afraid of the consequences, but you'll forgive me if I don't believe you. History is replete with people who regretted their actions once prosecutorial actions were commenced and punishments meted out. Defending oneself is expensive, and convictions impact not just the guilty but also their career and family.
Ultimately, it's your life and you have to live with the decisions you make. (And, possibly, your family, should you have one.) Your bluster and actions may not harm you in this specific instance because you’re involved with a project too small to attract a prosecutor’s attention, but it doesn’t make my caution any less valid. It may not persuade you, personally, but hopefully others who read this will get the message.
They will be successful at forcing corporate operating systems like MacOS, Windows, and maybe RedHat, but they have no power to compel code being added to independent international volunteer maintained open source operating systems maintained.
For projects with no legal entity like Stagex, arch, alpine, etc... we do not have to comply and there is no legal mechanism that exists to make us. Who would you even target? All maintainers have equal power, and cannot make changes alone. Especially not changes we do not want, for free.
I think the legislators should PR age verification code to all open source operating systems on their own dime, so we can ridicule them mercilessly before closing them as WONTFIX.
Oh, this I've got to see. Show us the receipts.
Look at my companies I work with via Distrust, and my resume. Most use stagex for their security critical operations, though I am unable to say which ones specifically. NDAs and all that. You could figure out a few of them if you looked.
I can tell you many many fortune 500 companies are relying on stagex for security critical use cases, and most are probably not even aware of it as they consume projects that wrap or build on stagex.
These two narratives materially conflict with each other.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/niche
In this case the market is "security critical operations."
A prosecutor might be motivated by and could cite the "tens of billions of dollars" quote.
Building compelling narratives is one of the key skills a prosecutor (or any other lawyer) brings to bear in order to win cases.
> Calling stagex a "niche Linux OS" suggests that hardly anyone uses it.
The guidelines say what's on topic here is "anything that good hackers would find interesting," and the free speech protections of source code definitely qualify.
If only that were true. I've seen people take the law into their own hands far too often, among other bad decisions based on Internet conversations.
I'm going to repeat this exhortation every time I see someone armchair lawyering.
"Don't give legal advice" != "never discuss the law."
We live in a democracy. Every citizen is ultimately responsible for deciding what the law should be. It follows that we should talk about what the law currently is.
Correct. You crossed the boundary between discussing it and giving advice. I already explained how above:
> This isn't mere research and discussion; it's suggesting an outcome (i.e., "you're safe[r]"). That crosses a line into advice.
I did not bring it up in other threads because you weren't doing that then.
If you still don’t understand the problem, consult your own lawyer.
BTW, in nearly every state, it is unlawful to practice law without a license.
I think my comment makes clear that I don't even know what district the guy lives in. It simply discusses what the law is in the sixth district.
It doesn't matter whether you're targeting it at an individual or a group.
> It simply discusses what the law is in the sixth district.
That may have been your intent, but that is not what happened.
At this point, I think you're choosing not to get it despite the feedback. So I'm done with this discussion.
Glad you're done at last.