That’s your opinion. It’s wrong.

Only facts can be right or wrong.

Anyway, I know there are applications that don’t have binaries, but most do. I am not a lawyer, but if I’m not mistaken, source code is under U.S. law protected by the first amendment while binaries are not.

Also, it doesn’t matter who owns the copyright. The laws specifies “a person that owns, maintains, or controls an application”.

I am not saying that the law is FOSS friendly. I am saying that the law does not cover all FOSS software despite it being the clear intend of the lawmakers to cover all software. In such cases it will have to be decided by courts (I believe courts still have this function for state laws), whether it also applies to FOSS software.

What I am saying is that the lawmakers clearly do not understand the topic they are trying to regulate.

Thanks. I didn’t know that.

The word ‘application’ means the binary. The source code is not the application.

According to (f), the user is officially the developer of a FOSS application:

• The user is the owner of the binary. (Although with copyright restrictions)
• The user often maintains the application by installing updates. (In FOSS applications updates are rarely forced)
• The user controls the application, as FOSS gives users control.

In some cases (such as the Arch User Repository or the Gentoo distribution), the developer does not even give the user an application but merely source code. The user creates the application.

It’s besically android without the Google parts.

I just bought the Fairphone 6 with /e/os. I am pleasantly surprised with how many apps work just fine.