Dylan M. Taylor, the developer who added an optional birthDate field to systemd's user database to help Linux distributions optionally comply with US age verification laws, shares his side of the controversy in an interview. He clarifies the change is not actual age verification — no ID checks or third-party validation are involved — and defends it as a lightweight, self-attested honor system similar to date pickers from the early 2000s. He also reveals the severe personal toll: death threats, doxxing, harassment, and having his personal information posted publicly. Dylan reflects on the broader tension between FOSS principles and legal compliance, predicting a future split between corporate-backed and independent Linux distributions on such issues, while affirming his commitment to open source despite the backlash.
Table of contents
Q: A lot of backlash isn't about the code change, but about what it represents. Do you (also) think this is the first step toward OS-level surveillance, even if unintended?Q. You say this is "just attestation, not verification" but we know that infrastructure always gets repurposed later. This is where the legit fear lies. Today it's birthDate. Tomorrow could it be location, identity, or verification tokens? I understand that you are providing a workaround but where should we draw the line between compliance and resistance?Q. Let's be direct. Should FOSS projects adapt to laws they fundamentally disagree with? Because these kinds of laws are certainly in conflict with what a lot of Linux users believe in.Q. Do you think regulations like these will reshape desktop Linux in the next 5-10 years where we might have "compliant Linux" and "Freedom-first Linux"?Q. Were you surprised by the intensity of the backlash? Did the criticism make you rethink your decision?Q. How are you personally dealing with being at the center of a controversy like this?Q. Would this backlash demotivate you from continuing your contribution to Linux and open source in the future?12 Comments
Sort: