The latest changes implemented in the Systemd repo, related to or prompted by age-verification laws, have made many people unhappy (I suppose links about this aren’t necessary). This has led to a surge in Systemd forks during the last days (“surge” because there have always been plenty of forks). Here are some forks that explicitly mention those changes as their reason for forking (rough time ordering taken from the fork page):
-
paramazo/systemd “The systemd System and Service Manager without age verification”
-
ganitam/systemd “Systemd fork just before the Age Verification addition. Hoping more capable developers and maintainers do same…”
-
GSYT-Productions/systemd-fork “The systemd System and Service Manager, without the stupid Age Verification”
-
speedythesnail/unret arded-systemd “The systemd System and Service Manager, without the ret arded age-verification commits”
-
ta13579/systemd “The systemd System and Service Manager WITHOUT THE FUCKING AGE CHECKS”
-
r4shsec/systemd-no-age-verification “This is systemd but without the age verification made via pull request https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/40978”
-
Pingasmaster/fightthesystemd “Systemd without the nonsense: no age verification, no lighthouse built-in.”
-
Jeffrey-Sardina/system “Liberated systemd – no surveillance. Ever.”
-
HaplessIdiot/systemd-saneagecheck “The systemd System and Service Manager with age verification bypass and polling rate options for said feature”
-
Queer-Coded-LGBTQ/systemd-fuck-california “The systemd System and Service Manager, but without age bs added in.”
-
Codiak540/unshitted-systemd “A fork of systemd aiming to strip the Age verification. Sue me california.”
Hopefully the energy of this reaction won’t be scattered among too many alternatives, although some amount of scattering is always good.
Complying in advance.
It is not complying in advance, it is beeing prepared for when the law becomes active and binding.
“it’s not complying in advance! it’s just exactly what complying in advance is”
In advance of what? The law is already enacted, and the time until it gets active is exactly there for preparation and development.
It would be in advance if he had done it when the law was still in the plan phase, but that is way done.
the law is not enacted. even in your prior comment you said this was being prepared for when the law is active and binding. no one told SystemD they had to do this. they voluntarily complied with a state law in colorado and two state laws in draft phase in other states
Governor Gavin Newsom signed the California Digital Age Assurance Act (AB 1043) into law on October 13, 2025.
It is a valid law, it only has a postponed start date of January 2027 to give everyone time to get their Systems ready.
So… in advance.
Yes! That’s how compliance works. Otherwise it would be like “Excuse me for speeding officer. I’m going to adhere to the speed limit tomorrow. I promise!” Anyway, what’s your point ?