[mmooss]

That's great, thank you.

> copy, redistribute, and modify the software

Shouldn't that specify the code not or not only the software? For example, the corporate Windows license allows the corporation to copy, redistribute (internally), and modify (via group policy, APIs, or development on the Windows platform) the software. The big difference between that and Linux is licensees can't access the code. FOSS requires free access to, use of, modification of, and redistribution of the code.

[tangotaylor]

Honestly you're probably right, code is a better term. I copied that language from Colorado's SB26-051 bill which also has a FOSS exemption and they use the word "software". I'm not a lawyer but I'm hoping that a court's interpretation of one state's language will apply to other states.

That and lots of FOSS licenses use some variant of those words "copy, redistribute, and modify" so it's probably a term-of-art that courts recognize.

This is what Colorado's law says. It prevents Tivoization but not feature nerfing like the Play Integrity API.

§ 6-30-105 (3)

(e) AN OPERATING SYSTEM PROVIDER OR DEVELOPER THAT DISTRIBUTES AN OPERATING SYSTEM OR APPLICATION UNDER LICENSE TERMS THAT PERMIT A RECIPIENT TO COPY, REDISTRIBUTE, AND MODIFY THE SOFTWARE WITHOUT ANY PLATFORM-IMPOSED TECHNICAL OR CONTRACTUAL RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY THE PROVIDER OR DEVELOPER ON INSTALLING ALL MODIFIED VERSIONS.

[mmooss]

I suppose using the broader term, software, doesn't hurt FOSS. It just might extend the law to others.