NationStates

Tinhampton wrote:This proposal is not [IN QUORUM] because it has not yet been approved by the requisite 63 delegates. Tentative approval/support anyway.

OOC: Now it's in quorum!

OOC: Go vote (preferably for)!

"Our delegation will be voting against for this proposal. It is a tough one. But ultimately what swayed us against was that we felt that the regulation clauses could be worded in a clearer and more direct way, and that FOSS definitions could be similiar to current definitions out there (OOC: Current RL standards) rather than the current definition."

We need to vote against this proposal. The reason for that is because if we would support this resolution then we would essentially make a community made apps, FOSS, into a proprietary software and no one wants that. Protection and establishing a copyright laws for FOSS is not needed because it was never endangered or needed. It's what FOSS is about. It's a flexible, community maintained, free for the most part, open source which means that it can be forked. Pushing FOSS into the predatory capitalist market will not only endangere FOSS but actively ruin it for everyone so it's the best to keep it out of the hands of capitalist market and keep it in the hands of the community where it truly belongs.

Equai wrote:We need to vote against this proposal. The reason for that is because if we would support this resolution then we would essentially make a community made apps, FOSS, into a proprietary software and no one wants that. Protection and establishing a copyright laws for FOSS is not needed because it was never endangered or needed. It's what FOSS is about. It's a flexible, community maintained, free for the most part, open source which means that it can be forked. Pushing FOSS into the predatory capitalist market will not only endangere FOSS but actively ruin it for everyone so it's the best to keep it out of the hands of capitalist market and keep it in the hands of the community where it truly belongs.

This is an interesting take, I had not looked at it that way.

Equai wrote:We need to vote against this proposal. The reason for that is because if we would support this resolution then we would essentially make a community made apps, FOSS, into a proprietary software and no one wants that. Protection and establishing a copyright laws for FOSS is not needed because it was never endangered or needed. It's what FOSS is about. It's a flexible, community maintained, free for the most part, open source which means that it can be forked. Pushing FOSS into the predatory capitalist market will not only endangere FOSS but actively ruin it for everyone so it's the best to keep it out of the hands of capitalist market and keep it in the hands of the community where it truly belongs.

A delegate from the Socialist Republic of Tuseth suddenly speaks up, shouting as their face turned red in anger."Exactly! On top of that, the way this is worded, it seems like access to free and open-source software has to be prioritized over nations' domestic laws! Could you imagine giving one of these petty-bourgeois revisionists a VPN so they could have uncensored internet access?!" The Tusethian delegate promptly downs a glass of water before slamming it onto their desk and clearing their throat, embarrassed about the outburst.

Elwher must, with some regret, vote against this proposal. The phrasing means that if an action is legal in only one other jurisdiction, it must be protected in all jurisdictions. This could lead to many unintended (at least we hope unintended) consequences. For example, should one nation make hacking legal, then any FOSS application for this purpose could not be restricted.

Published at large to the General Assembly:

Greetings, friends.

While the Princess broadly supports efforts to enact reasonable international legislation on Open Source Software, we cannot support this proposal because of the following clauses:

PFOSSU Proposal wrote:Defining Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) as software which is * * * largely free of restrictions in regards to anything performed on, for, or with the software (such as its usage, modification, and distribution), including * * * purposes which may be illegal in other jurisdictions.

* * * * *

Requires that all member nations * * * recognize and protect the right of individuals and entities to, for any legal purpose: * * * distribute original and modified copies of FOSS.

Our mages sacrificed countless frosted sprinkle donuts to the computer gods seeking insight into the meaning of these provisions. After many hours, at least a few mages felt these provisions would require nations to "protect the right" of bad actors to distribute "FOSS" even in countries where the purposes of that software are illegal. For example, nations with permissive file-sharing or pornography policies would have to allow people to distribute software enabling those activities even to countries where that activity would be viewed as violating intellectual property or privacy laws.

We cannot support laws that openly undermine legitimate regulations established by our friends and neighbors. Accordingly, I cast the Princess's vote AGAINST this proposal.

We hope that further drafting might be done on this subject to arrive at a resolution we could support in the future.

Signed,
Kaylin Twinklebright
Political Ally, Class 37
Ambassador to the World Assembly

"At present, it seems that the primary opposition to this proposal involves a loss of sovereignty over national criminal law, in addition to unclear definitions and regulation clauses. If we were to address those concerns in a revised proposal, would we turn those nays to yeas?"

Elwher wrote:For example, should one nation make hacking legal, then any FOSS application for this purpose could not be restricted.

Curses - they spotted out dastardly plot.
Shamian would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for you meddling kids!

Shamian wrote:

Elwher wrote:For example, should one nation make hacking legal, then any FOSS application for this purpose could not be restricted.

Curses - they spotted out dastardly plot.
Shamian would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for you meddling kids!

Scooby Doo strikes again!!

OOC: Section two is excessively broad. Parents taking away their children's internet privileges are rendered criminals when they know their kids would have accessed open-source software.

[U][WA] Unclassified - World Assembly Use Only
Communiqué from the World Assembly Mission of Her Most Serene Majesty, The Crown of Starkindler:

To the delegates of the World Assembly:

After careful deliberation; while the Crown wholeheartedly supports the Open Source Software movement, and has mandated OSS operating systems and AI frameworks be run in the Government (unless it would infringe on the right of an AI citizen to run on a platform of their own choosing), the Crown shall submit a vote of AGAINST to proposed WA resolution # 615:

Reasons against follow:

• Point 1. a. of the proposed Resolution defines Free and Open Source Software as being open to commercial, for profit exploitation. While the Crown feels that projects and licenses allowing commercial use should not be exluded, enacting this point would exclude all the projects which are open-sourced, but use a more restrictive licensing agreement for for-profit use under the protections of the proposed resolution.
• Point 1. a. of the proposed Resolution may not be understandable in post-scarcity, public, or sharing-based economies of some jurisdictions (i.e. Communist countries, or highly developed nations abolishing money due to ubiquitious access to energy and materials) who have no concept of "for-profit" or "commercial".
• Point 1. b. defines Open-Source software as software allowed to be used for puropses that is illegal in some jurisdictions, but not according to international law. While the Crown feels that this would greatly improve the protection of free speech worldwide by allowing FOSS to spread information freely than some jurisdictions allow, this would however create dangerous backdoors such as, but not included to:
  
  • Allowing sentients under requirement 1; a; II. to use FOSS malware - or FOSS as a malware-delivery system - to harm, terminate, encrypt, or cause data loss to AI citizens (and other information-based lifeforms) based on laws of their jurisdiction either not recognizing AI citizenship, not regulating AI citizenship because of the lack of technology to create and run information-based lifeforms, or mandating that AI is inherently evil, and destroying information-based lifeforms in jurisdictions other than their own which may be interpreted as an act of war.
  • Allowing sentients under requirement 1; a; II. to use FOSS malware - or FOSS as a malware-delivery system - to cause data loss or encryption to other sentients based on laws of their jurisdiction either not regulating unlawful access to other computer systems.
  • Allowing sentients under requirement 1; a; II. to use FOSS malware to infringe upon the right to privacy of other sentients - even if they have a legal right in the Terms and Conditions of a site to run such malware on the devices of anyone accessing their sites - based on laws of their jurisdiction not recognizing privacy, not regulating the privacy concerns of information network use, or having laws which prioritize other entities' access to information over sentient individuals' rights to privacy.
• The Crown feels that the proposed Resolution do not have sufficient protections of the rights of AI citizens' right to privacy and individuality, by allowing sentients to run unauthorized copies of AI citizens running on FOSS platforms.
• The Crown feels that the proposed Resolution do not have sufficient protections against FOSS or FOSS components being used as weapons of war
• The Crown feels that requirement 1; b; contradicts the Resolution's definition of FOSS that only licenses allowing commercial for-profit use may be protected, since dual-licensed projects may pass the project developers' original intentions of the project remaining free for general use, while requiring those who make a profit off others' work support the community either by contributing code, information, or resources to the developers.
• The Crown feels that requirement 2; is ambigious as in what is meant on legal action against the rights related to FOSS.

Thus urging the original author of the proposed resolution to consider amending the bill based on the feedback of the Crown and other ambassadors to the WA.

Signed,
Gertrude Faulkes
Ambassador to the World Assembly Mission of Her Most Serene Majesty, The Crown of Starkindler

"Defining Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) as software which is both:
Free of cost and largely free of restrictions in regards to anything performed on, for, or with the software (such as its usage, modification, and distribution), including both:
commercial (i.e. for profit), purposes, and
purposes which may be illegal in other jurisdictions, with the exception of those illegal under international law, and
Open source, or its programming is available in its entirety and easily accessible to/for all members of the public without restriction, except in regards to regulations on the editing of the master copy of the software to ensure its quality,"

Does not any proposal which endorses FOSS under this definition inherently endorse therefore, the usage of software for malicious and criminal intent, detrimental to the serene and holy peace our governments preserve?

The Libertarian Socialist Confederation's [delegate] will unfortunately have to vote AGAINST this resolution.

Dicq can not vote in favor of this resolution as long as it defines FOSS as "Free of cost".

Free software should be free as in freedom. This freedom includes the economic freedom to charge money for a copy of the software.

"Free of cost" also contradicts section 1.a commercial purposes.

Voted in support and this shall be codified into law within our nation, although it will not pass as international law, know that your bill will live on within the United States of Americanas books of law.

"Protecting Free, Open Source Software Use" was defeated 11,603 votes to 3,825.

It was a good run, just had some flaws that need to be sorted out.

"Well, our proposal got defeated. Thankfully, bringing it to vote brought out a good amount of quality feedback we utilized to create the most recent draft of this proposal. We think you'll find that it addresses most of your expressed concerns."

Clever Homo Sapiens wrote:"Well, our proposal got defeated. Thankfully, bringing it to vote brought out a good amount of quality feedback we utilized to create the most recent draft of this proposal. We think you'll find that it addresses most of your expressed concerns."

Please revert your OP to the voted version. That will be archived. A new thread should be created for further drafting.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Please revert your OP to the voted version. That will be archived. A new thread should be created for further drafting.

OOC: I took care of it. Sorry about that!