One could cope that this regulation can not apply to Linux or other OSS operating systems. But this is only true unless the bootloaders on consumer devices are mandated to be closed next.

We already have Secure Boot, the infrastructure is in place. It is currently optional, but a law like this can change that.

The law is written so broadly, I think it applies to them already: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

> (c) “Application” means a software application that may be run or directed by a user on a computer, a mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device that can access a covered application store or download an application.

This is basically any program.

> (e) (1) “Covered application store” means a publicly available internet website, software application, online service, or platform that distributes and facilitates the download of applications from third-party developers to users of a computer, a mobile device, or any other general purpose computing that can access a covered application store or can download an application.

This would include any package manager like dnf/apt/pacman/etc. They facilitate download of applications from third parties.

> (g) “Operating system provider” means a person or entity that develops, licenses, or controls the operating system software on a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device.

This sounds to me like it would include distro maintainers. They develop and/or control the OS. Also, would this include the kernel devs? How would they be responsible for the myriad of package managers.

The overall law reeks of politicians not knowing what they're legislating.