[SUBMITTED] You Should Have (copy)Left My Software Alone!

[SherpDaWerp]

You Should Have (copy)Left My Software Alone!

Description
The new YourGov app produced by the @@DEMONYM@@ government is a hit, allowing citizens unified access to all their important government services. But, some @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@, concerned with the storage of their personal data on government servers, decompiled and picked apart the app - only to find large portions of the code rely on restrictive "copyleft" software libraries written in the United Federation.
Validity
Has computers and internet; Has copyright; Some government services provided to citizens

Option 1a
"I created those libraries for the good of the world, and you selfish @@DEMONYM@@ jerks used them without following the terms!" yells @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, sniffling @@HIS_1@@ nose and pushing up @@HIS_1@@ glasses. "It says right here in the software license - all reliant works must be released under the same open-source license, so you're committing a copyright violation by not giving out your code! Release your code and comply with the license, then maybe, just maybe, I won't sue your government for everything you've got!"
Validity
Has Courts
Outcome
programmers often reinvent the wheel

Option 1b
"I created those libraries for the good of the world, and you selfish @@DEMONYM@@ jerks used them without following the terms!" yells @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, sniffling @@HIS_1@@ nose and pushing up @@HIS_1@@ glasses. "It says right here in the software license - all reliant works must be released under the same open-source license, so you're committing a copyright violation by not giving out your code! Release your code and comply with the license, then maybe, just maybe, I won't take your government to some international court and sue for everything you've got!"
Validity
No Courts
Outcome
programmers often reinvent the wheel

Option 2
"Whoa, now hold on there," interjects data scientist @@RANDOMNAME_2@@, the lead developer of the app. "Yeah, ok, we might, possibly, have used, ah, just a couple of those libraries that the kid wrote. But, for us to comply with this "Wildebeest" license @@HE_1@@'s talking about, we would have to release all our code to the public domain! Imagine the security risk if some Dàguóan hackers could get all the source code for the apps providing these key government services! It's unreasonable to expect us to comply with these terms - you need to ban overreaching copyleft licenses!"
Validity
All
Outcome
government programs are less "written" and more "copied"

Option 3
"The problem here isn't the license or the code, it's that people found out!" whispers a shady @@MAN_3@@, the brim of whose black hat is tilted to obscure @@HIS@@ face. "@@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ decompiling the code is a security risk in and of itself - any malicious hackers could just as easily do the same. We need to obfuscate all of our code, allow only trusted developers access, and forbid members of the public from tinkering with it. Anyone that tries to hack government infrastructure obviously has hostile intentions, and we need to treat them that way!"
Validity
All
Outcome
using the "inspect element" tool comes with espionage charges

Option 4
"Pretty sure that's an unconscionable breach of our civil rights," responds @@RANDOMNAME_4@@, the @@DEMONYM@@ who found the copied code, as @@HE@@ desperately tries to conceal a Guy Fawkes mask. "We have a right to know what we're installing on our computers - any software that you want us to download should always be open-source! Plus, just think - how much better would the code for these applications be if all of @@NAME@@ could provide input? True @@DEMONYM@@ programs, made by the people, for the people!"
Validity
All
Outcome
too many developers spoil the codebase

You Should Have (copy)Left My Software Alone!

Description
The government's new app has been a hit, giving the populace greater access to @@DEMONYM@@ governance than ever before. However, some @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@, concerned with storage of their personal data on government servers, took apart the app, only to find large portions of the code were reused from software libraries designed and written in the United Federation.
Validity
some scientific advancement, has copyright, (possibly) some privacy rights

Option 1
"I created those libraries for the good of the world, and you selfish @@DEMONYM@@ jerks depend on it without following the terms!" yells @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, sniffling @@HIS_1@@ nose and pushing up @@HIS_1@@ glasses. "It says right here in the software license - all derivative works must be released under the same open-source specification. You're committing a copyright violation! I can't believe you thought you could get away with this! Release your code immediately, or I'll sue for, like, a bajillion @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@!"
Validity
All
Outcome
the only thing between the government and copyright law is a teenager from the United Federation

Option 2
"Whoa, now hold on there," interjects data scientist @@RANDOMNAME_2@@, the lead developer of the app. "Yeah, we might have used a couple libraries that the kid wrote, but for us to comply with this "Wildebeest" license @@HE_1@@'s talking about, we would have to release all our code to the public domain! Imagine the security risk if some hackers from Dàguó got access to all our source code, why, they'd be able to run rampant! It's unreasonable to expect us to comply with these terms - you need to ban these overreaching licenses!"
Validity
All
Outcome
software licenses only apply while the government wants to comply

Option 3
"Huh? Malicious hackers from Dàguó?" questions @@RANDOMNAME_3@@, the @@DEMONYM@@ who found the copied code. "If I can decompile the code and find out as much as I have, surely they can do the same... Anyway, I agree with @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, but, you should mandate that all government infrastructure become open-source - just think, if however many developers made this app, how much better would it be if all of @@NAME@@ could provide input? A true @@DEMONYM@@ project, made by the people, for the people!"
Validity
All
Outcome
too many developers spoil the codebase

You Should Have (copy)Left My Software Alone!

Description
The government's new weather alert app has been a hit, although some @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ are concerned with the storage of their location data on government servers. A group of these individuals took apart the app to allay their fears, and, while there's no danger of location tracking, large portions of the code were found to have been copied from a similar app designed and built in the United Federation.
Validity
some scientific advancement, has copyright, (possibly) some privacy rights

Option 1
"I built that app for the good of the world, and you selfish @@DEMONYM@@ jerks took it without giving me any credit!" yells @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, sniffling @@HIS_1@@ nose and pushing up @@HIS_1@@ glasses. "Besides, it says right here in the 'Wildebeest' copyright license that all derivative works must be released under the same open-source specification - you're committing a copyright violation! Take your imitation down, and use only your own work next time!"
Validity
All
Outcome
re-writing basic software is often more cost-effective than following all the terms and conditions

Option 2
"Whoa, now hold on there," interjects government data scientist @@RANDOMNAME_2@@, letting out a small cackle. "So what we used some of @@RANDOMNAME_1@@'s code? We're part of the @@DEMONYM@@ Government, and @@HE_1@@'s just some random kid! There's no way @@HE@@ can stand up to us in any meaningful way. Just tell @@HIM_1@@ to drop all this copyright stuff, under threat of legal action - or worse..." @@HE_2@@ grins evilly.
Validity
All
Outcome
the only copyrighted software is software that the government hasn't heard of yet

Option 3
"I can't believe what I'm hearing!" exclaims @@RANDOMNAME_3@@, the @@DEMONYM@@ who found the copied code. "Threats? Good heavens, whatever will the government do next! To comply with this 'Wildebeest' software license, all you need to do is release your code as open-source - which you should be doing anyway! I tell you, it would make my job a lot easier if I could just scroll through some pre-released code instead of decompiling a finished product..."
Validity
All
Outcome
no-one knows how cybercriminals can decrypt government secrets so quickly

Inspiration: The Australian government recently released their COVID-19 contact tracing app, COVIDSafe. Some people decompiled it looking for security flaws, and in the process, learned it was based heavily on the open-source OpenTrace app that Singapore already made, which was released under the GNU General Public license. The GNU license is "copyleft", which means any and all derivative works must be released under the same license. Australia didn't release their app under the GNU license, which means they're technically in breach of the licensing for OpenTrace.

I intend to make this my only submission for the Issues Contest.

[Australian rePublic]

Option 1- Leader is a selfish bastard who is jeopardising the good of the world because he wants people to know what the weather is in their current location?

[Ko-oren]

There's a slight contradiction between options 1 and 2. Option 1 brings up that the app is already a violation of copyright laws, so suing as in option 2 should only mean that the government loses the case anyway. Option 2, to get a successful court case, needs copyright laws to disappear (or be massively modified).

[Trotterdam]

This is pretty unambiguously a violation of copyright law. There's little justification for it other than "we're the government and rich enough to get away with breaking the law", or maybe "we hoped we wouldn't get caught", neither of which justification says anything new about copyright per se.

However, the more interesting thing here is that the GNU GPL is designed to serve the opposite purpose from more conventional copyright, and in fact the GNU community is a common proponent of abolishing or limiting copyright laws - despite themselves also depending on them, as without copyright the GPL's "you must release the source code" stipulation wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on. Since NationStates has issues that allow you to abolish copyright law, I wonder how doing that would affect the people who want to use GNU GPL and Creative Commons type licenses, rather than just the people who want to use conventional commercial copyrights.

Also regarding the mentality of the GNU community, it seems likely that the original author would also support option 3 (release your derative work under the open-source license) rather than option 1 (ban the derivative work entirely). That's the point of the GPL, which is to encourage people to share. Option currently-numbered-as-1 would more likely be a compromise suggested by a government official who doesn't want to comply with the license but also doesn't want to break the law.

[Candensia]

This totally is not a shameless plug for one of my issues, but have you thought about how a debate might come up more organically if you chained it off 974.1? Totally not a shameless plug, just something to think about.

[Pythaga]

I like the concept of dealing with copyleft licenses, but I'm not sure it works as currently written.

As others have mentioned, option 1 doesn't make too much sense, the people who use GPL want to spread open source, not nail people for violating copyright. Option 3 I believe is what option 1 should have been.

What I'd recommend is rewriting option 1 in the spirit of option 3, just have the government follow the terms of the license and release their code, and paint it as detrimental to government information security. Then have option 2 basically say we are the government, copyright law doesn't apply to us. I can't really think of a third option. Basically, you are forcing leader to choose between following the law to the government's detriment, or protecting the government's interests via corrupt and authoritarian means, which I think makes for a better issue.

[The Cosmic Mainframe]

the people who use GPL want to spread open source, not nail people for violating copyright.

I'm not SherpDaWerp, but with regard to this: the GPL actually has some rather strict terms that GPL users do try, usually unsuccessfully, to nail people for violating. For example, GPLv3 software can't be used on hardware that has been locked down to prevent modification, and software that is modified from or integrates GPL code must place all code under a compatible license. The Software Freedom Conservancy does a lot of this litigation.

Anyway, good draft, although to avoid the above confusion option 1 could be reworded. Also, option 3 seems like a bit too obvious of a choice.

[Pythaga]

the people who use GPL want to spread open source, not nail people for violating copyright.

I'm not SherpDaWerp, but with regard to this: the GPL actually has some rather strict terms that GPL users do try, usually unsuccessfully, to nail people for violating. For example, GPLv3 software can't be used on hardware that has been locked down to prevent modification, and software that is modified from or integrates GPL code must place all code under a compatible license. The Software Freedom Conservancy does a lot of this litigation.

Anyway, good draft, although to avoid the above confusion option 1 could be reworded. Also, option 3 seems like a bit too obvious of a choice.

I know that they use the GPL to try and force the spread of free software; however, my comment was in reference to option 1, which seems to be a GPL user upset that his personal work being used, which doesn't quite align with the GPL and seems more inline with normal copyright.

[SherpDaWerp]

You'd think with quarantine, I would have had tremendous amounts of time to work on this, but online school and assignments have been, well, difficult. Having got this out just before assignments started being due, I've been unable to address much of this for several days, because it required a pretty major re-write. Thankfully, I've managed to get most of my assignments out of the way, so here's a pretty hefty overhaul for Draft 2!

---

Option 1- Leader is a selfish bastard who is jeopardising the good of the world because he wants people to know what the weather is in their current location?

It doesn't necessarily have to be @@LEADER@@'s decision... I had strayed away from mentioning that so the reader can think about whether it was an underling going "my job would be so much easier if we copied that other one", or whether it was a deliberate choice.

There's a slight contradiction between options 1 and 2. Option 1 brings up that the app is already a violation of copyright laws, so suing as in option 2 should only mean that the government loses the case anyway. Option 2, to get a successful court case, needs copyright laws to disappear (or be massively modified).

I was thinking more along the lines of "trumped-up government charges", some massively corrupt bribery or something similar. But abolishing copyright is equally a good idea - the new option 2 should better reflect this.

This is pretty unambiguously a violation of copyright law. There's little justification for it other than "we're the government and rich enough to get away with breaking the law", or maybe "we hoped we wouldn't get caught", neither of which justification says anything new about copyright per se.

I guess I was basing it perhaps a little too heavily on the IRL case (still can't believe the government/subcontractors for the government actually did that, but oh well I guess).

However, the more interesting thing here is that the GNU GPL is designed to serve the opposite purpose from more conventional copyright, and in fact the GNU community is a common proponent of abolishing or limiting copyright laws - despite themselves also depending on them, as without copyright the GPL's "you must release the source code" stipulation wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on. Since NationStates has issues that allow you to abolish copyright law, I wonder how doing that would affect the people who want to use GNU GPL and Creative Commons type licenses, rather than just the people who want to use conventional commercial copyrights.

Also regarding the mentality of the GNU community, it seems likely that the original author would also support option 3 (release your derative work under the open-source license) rather than option 1 (ban the derivative work entirely). That's the point of the GPL, which is to encourage people to share. Option currently-numbered-as-1 would more likely be a compromise suggested by a government official who doesn't want to comply with the license but also doesn't want to break the law.

The characterisation led the option a bit astray, I think. The idea was a knee-jerk reaction to the issue: "you broke the license, so now you get no access!"

There's perhaps room for another issue like this wherein GNU (or "wildebeest") people are complaining that without copyright, people are just not telling anyone about their work, and encrypting it, rather than relying on copyright or copyleft licenses, which puts people who want to release free software at a massive disadvantage. Alternative software-rights issues include that one time where someone took down their library from NPM and broke a ton of stuff... https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/23/npm_left_pad_chaos/

This totally is not a shameless plug for one of my issues, but have you thought about how a debate might come up more organically if you chained it off 974.1? Totally not a shameless plug, just something to think about.

I did search the issue base for options I could chain this off, but given there's only one (yours), it seems like an unnecessary restriction. This issue works well enough without having to choose that option as a pretext. FWIW, to make the issue more valid for those nations that didn't necessarily choose 974.1, I've changed the app from a weather app to a generic government app, more like the usa.gov app (or what the usa.gov app sounds like... idk what it's like to actually use)

I like the concept of dealing with copyleft licenses, but I'm not sure it works as currently written.

As others have mentioned, option 1 doesn't make too much sense, the people who use GPL want to spread open source, not nail people for violating copyright. Option 3 I believe is what option 1 should have been.

What I'd recommend is rewriting option 1 in the spirit of option 3, just have the government follow the terms of the license and release their code, and paint it as detrimental to government information security. Then have option 2 basically say we are the government, copyright law doesn't apply to us. I can't really think of a third option. Basically, you are forcing leader to choose between following the law to the government's detriment, or protecting the government's interests via corrupt and authoritarian means, which I think makes for a better issue.

See above - the characterisation led the option astray. Based on this comment, though, I did add more emphasis to the government-defender of Option 2, because making option 1 or 3 outright state the downsides of their option is a bit cliche.

Anyway, good draft, although to avoid the above confusion option 1 could be reworded. Also, option 3 seems like a bit too obvious of a choice.

The new option 2 gives more downsides to picking other options - they were hinted at in the effect line of option 3 but realistically, that's a bit late for the reader to know about them.

I know that they use the GPL to try and force the spread of free software; however, my comment was in reference to option 1, which seems to be a GPL user upset that his personal work being used, which doesn't quite align with the GPL and seems more inline with normal copyright.

Yep; as above, it was more an issue of characterisation.

---

I've removed the original concept of "knee-jerk reaction" because it was causing too many problems, so the new Option 1 is now just "comply with my license or else". Option 2 is "but what about our information security?" and then Option 3 is "release everything open-source". I feel like Option 3's speaker might give a little bit too much of a down-side to Option 2 when @@HE@@ says "If I can decompile the code and find out as much as I have, surely they can do the same..." though, but there will always be psychotic dictatorships who choose it just to ban stuff.

There's also some new effect lines...

Hopefully I've managed to address all your concerns.

[Trotterdam]

The government's new app has been a hit, giving the populace greater access to @@DEMONYM@@ governance than ever before. However, some @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@, concerned with storage of their personal data on government servers, took apart the app, only to find large portions of the code were reused from software libraries designed and written in the United Federation.

...What does the app do?

The previous draft said it was a "weather alert app", and I almost assumed it still is before remembering to double-check for the sake of the points I make below.

For the most part the exact nature of the app may not be the point of the issue, but if people are worried about security, it implies that the app handles some data that people would prefer to keep private, but also that the app is useful enough that people prefer not to avoid the issue and protect their privacy by just not using it, so it's somewhat important for the narrative to click what data is actually being processed in this app.

[Trotterdam]

Option 2
"Whoa, now hold on there," interjects data scientist @@RANDOMNAME_2@@, the lead developer of the app. "Yeah, we might have used a couple libraries that the kid wrote, but for us to comply with this "Wildebeest" license @@HE_1@@'s talking about, we would have to release all our code to the public domain! Imagine the security risk if some hackers from Dàguó got access to all our source code, why, they'd be able to run rampant! It's unreasonable to expect us to comply with these terms - you need to ban these overreaching licenses!"
Validity
All
Outcome
software licenses only apply while the government wants to comply

Option 3
"Huh? Malicious hackers from Dàguó?" questions @@RANDOMNAME_3@@, the @@DEMONYM@@ who found the copied code. "If I can decompile the code and find out as much as I have, surely they can do the same... Anyway, I agree with @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, but, you should mandate that all government infrastructure become open-source - just think, if however many developers made this app, how much better would it be if all of @@NAME@@ could provide input? A true @@DEMONYM@@ project, made by the people, for the people!"
Validity
All
Outcome
too many developers spoil the codebase

It's kind of funny how both of these options make arguments that would be more valid if you took the course of action proposed by the other option

Something like a weather app is unlikely to have access to important enough systems to be much of a security risk (as speaker 2 is worried about), but releasing all government infrastructure as open-source (as speaker 3 suggests) probably would.

Meanwhile, the "anyone looking for security holes can just decompile it even if the source code isn't public" argument (as speaker 3 advances) is certainly valid for a public app, but not for internal software used by government servers, military hardware, and so on (which option 3 explicitly still includes).

[Trotterdam]

There's perhaps room for another issue like this wherein GNU (or "wildebeest") people are complaining that without copyright, people are just not telling anyone about their work, and encrypting it, rather than relying on copyright or copyleft licenses, which puts people who want to release free software at a massive disadvantage.

If you don't tell people about your work, you also can't sell it for money.

Without copyright (or copyleft) law, there would be no way to force people to release the source code for their programs, but there would also be no laws preventing you from decompiling the program, reverse-engineering its design, and then using that design in your own work. It'd be more tedious than using clean source code and so would happen less often, but it would still happen and there would be nothing the original author can do about it. (You could try to write deliberately-obfuscated code, but if the code is capable of running at all, then there has to be some way of deciphering it.)

[SherpDaWerp]

There's perhaps room for another issue like this wherein GNU (or "wildebeest") people are complaining that without copyright, people are just not telling anyone about their work, and encrypting it, rather than relying on copyright or copyleft licenses, which puts people who want to release free software at a massive disadvantage.

If you don't tell people about your work, you also can't sell it for money.

Without copyright (or copyleft) law, there would be no way to force people to release the source code for their programs, but there would also be no laws preventing you from decompiling the program, reverse-engineering its design, and then using that design in your own work. It'd be more tedious than using clean source code and so would happen less often, but it would still happen and there would be nothing the original author can do about it. (You could try to write deliberately-obfuscated code, but if the code is capable of running at all, then there has to be some way of deciphering it.)

But people can still complain about that process of obfuscation happening due to the lack of copyleft licensing, and the fact that people who release open-source software are at a massive disadvantage because they don't have to get credit, licensing or any similar benefit from others using their software, when, with copyleft licensing, they could ensure that open-source code is propagated by the community.

Regardless, discussion about ideas is best suited for The Writers' Block; any feedback on Draft 2?

[SherpDaWerp]

Page 3 bump! I've fixed up all the characterisation issues inherent in Draft 1, so I'm looking to find out what y'all think of Draft 2.

I had intended to write more issues, but I've got an assignment due pretty much once a week every week until the end of the contest, so I'll leave it at just this one. It's probably for the best, if I get a better draft out of it.

[Aibohphobia]

Kind of reminded me of Terminator Genesys, for some weird reason (terrible movie, by the way, but I like the draft of this issue).
I personally don't like the use of the words "bajillion" and "app". The first one sounds over-the-top childish, and the latter narrows the issue down to the mobile market alone. Government "apps" tend to have a solid, non-mobile system behind them, which doesn't get mentioned.

[SherpDaWerp]

Ok everyone: Draft 3 and Last Call, because that contest deadline is closing fast...

---

What does the app do?

The previous draft said it was a "weather alert app", and I almost assumed it still is before remembering to double-check for the sake of the points I make below.

For the most part the exact nature of the app may not be the point of the issue, but if people are worried about security, it implies that the app handles some data that people would prefer to keep private, but also that the app is useful enough that people prefer not to avoid the issue and protect their privacy by just not using it, so it's somewhat important for the narrative to click what data is actually being processed in this app.

I've tried very hard to make it more specific without assuming a lot about what sort of services the government provides. I considered doing doppelgangers of Option 2 ("could fiddle with these key government services!" -> "could fiddle with our government unemployment!" etc.) around different services that the government may or may not provide, but that quickly escalated into 4 different options that just felt unnecessary. So I've left it deliberately ambiguous, but still tried to make sure it's clear that the app is important and has user data involved.

It's kind of funny how both of these options make arguments that would be more valid if you took the course of action proposed by the other option

Something like a weather app is unlikely to have access to important enough systems to be much of a security risk (as speaker 2 is worried about), but releasing all government infrastructure as open-source (as speaker 3 suggests) probably would.

Meanwhile, the "anyone looking for security holes can just decompile it even if the source code isn't public" argument (as speaker 3 advances) is certainly valid for a public app, but not for internal software used by government servers, military hardware, and so on (which option 3 explicitly still includes).

OK; given the app is now about government services it's more likely to be a security risk, and option 3 (except now it's 4) has a caveat in that only software that people download needs to be open-source (not all the military hardware etc).

Kind of reminded me of Terminator Genesys, for some weird reason (terrible movie, by the way, but I like the draft of this issue).
I personally don't like the use of the words "bajillion" and "app". The first one sounds over-the-top childish, and the latter narrows the issue down to the mobile market alone. Government "apps" tend to have a solid, non-mobile system behind them, which doesn't get mentioned.

Bajillion has been removed, although that was more part of the split from 1 to 1a/1b - the "kid" sounding childish was a deliberate decision to go with the fact that they want repatriation rather than spreading open-source software.
App doesn't necessarily narrow it to the mobile market - web apps are a thing - and it's easier than explaining the distinction between the two.

---

Other new shiny bits include:

• Doppelganger of option 1 for nations with and without courts
• Option 3 pushed down to #4
• Brand new shiny Option 3, for dystopian hellholes that love removing people's rights
• Much better effect lines for #1 and #2

[SherpDaWerp]

and somehow, even after agonising over this for a day and a half, I've still had to make some additional fixes to Option 1a/b...

[Westinor]

This is probably just me, but I'm not very familiar with the term "depend" (probably just a lack of critical thought on my part due to my sleep-deprived mind) but though I get the general term of it, it's just a tad bit confusing. Also, the beginning of the issue feels a bit open-ended, like it deserves to be a chain from another issue (again, probably just me; I'd be prone to write more in the description, but that's likely a fault on my part). Anyway, good issue!

[SherpDaWerp]

This is probably just me, but I'm not very familiar with the term "depend" (probably just a lack of critical thought on my part due to my sleep-deprived mind) but though I get the general term of it, it's just a tad bit confusing. Also, the beginning of the issue feels a bit open-ended, like it deserves to be a chain from another issue (again, probably just me; I'd be prone to write more in the description, but that's likely a fault on my part). Anyway, good issue!

Fair concerns.
Dependencies are a little bit of a technical concept, so I've replaced "depend on" with "rely on" in the description (and changed wording in option 1 to match) - the meaning is close enough.

My description sets the scene, but doesn't do that well at presenting a conflict - you have to read the options to find out why it's a problem that the code relies on other people's libraries. I feel like it still works ok because the conflict is fully explained in Option 1, and there's plenty of detail there that simply wouldn't fit in the description without making it far too long.

[Westinor]

This is probably just me, but I'm not very familiar with the term "depend" (probably just a lack of critical thought on my part due to my sleep-deprived mind) but though I get the general term of it, it's just a tad bit confusing. Also, the beginning of the issue feels a bit open-ended, like it deserves to be a chain from another issue (again, probably just me; I'd be prone to write more in the description, but that's likely a fault on my part). Anyway, good issue!

Fair concerns.
Dependencies are a little bit of a technical concept, so I've replaced "depend on" with "rely on" in the description (and changed wording in option 1 to match) - the meaning is close enough.

My description sets the scene, but doesn't do that well at presenting a conflict - you have to read the options to find out why it's a problem that the code relies on other people's libraries. I feel like it still works ok because the conflict is fully explained in Option 1, and there's plenty of detail there that simply wouldn't fit in the description without making it far too long.

Good point, that's definitely valid.

[Noahs Second Country]

I find mentioning 'hackers from Daguo' in both option 2 and option 3 kind of repetitive - they seem to make the same point. I think you should either a) keep a mention of hacking threat in option 2 and have the speaker in option 3 agree, b)use a different point to support the argument in one of the options, or c)change the wording to avoid repetition.

[SherpDaWerp]

I find mentioning 'hackers from Daguo' in both option 2 and option 3 kind of repetitive - they seem to make the same point. I think you should either a) keep a mention of hacking threat in option 2 and have the speaker in option 3 agree, b)use a different point to support the argument in one of the options, or c)change the wording to avoid repetition.

The idea was consistency, and that the speaker of Option 3 is referencing the "boogeyman" mentioned in Option 2, but stating that they can do much more than Option 2's speaker implies. Nevertheless, I see that it's somewhat repetitious - Option 3 now says "malicious hackers" instead (and I've changed the wording later in the option so I don't repeat myself any more).

[Trotterdam]

App doesn't necessarily narrow it to the mobile market - web apps are a thing - and it's easier than explaining the distinction between the two.

I think the distinction has been blurring, anyway. "App" seems like a newer and more trendy way of saying "program", particularly among the younger generation.

I'm still not sure why a new term was ever deemed necessary, even for mobile phones.

large portions of the code rely on software libraries written in the United Federation.

"I created those libraries for the good of the world,"

I'm wary of this part. The GNU community seems to be aware that libraries has special considerations, which is why the LGPL exists. It's not always used, so it's possible that the programmer simply released the library under a full GPL-equivalent and the problem would remain, but in general much of the GNU community is not actually against their libraries being used by propriety programs, so long as the library itself is kept open-source.

Option 3
"The problem here isn't the license or the code, it's that people found out!" whispers a shady @@MAN_3@@ wearing a large black hat. "@@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ decompiling the code is a security risk in and of itself - any malicious hackers could just as easily do the same. We need to encrypt all of our code, allow only trusted developers access, and forbid members of the public from tinkering with it. Any @@DEMONYM@@ that tries to hack government infrastructure obviously has hostile intentions, and we need to treat them that way!"
Validity
All
Outcome
using the "inspect element" tool comes with espionage charges

The first underlined part doesn't work. At least, it's not going to slow anyone down for long. For the code to be able to run at all, the means to decrypt it must be included, so this would only be a speed bump to any serious hackers. It's like improving a store's security by keeping the doors locked and leaving a stack of keys next to the door so customers can enter.

The second underlined part is technically possible, in that you can outlaw anything if you want to, but it would be pretty much impossible to enforce such a law. It's simply far too easy to do in private without anyone finding out about it.

[SherpDaWerp]

App doesn't necessarily narrow it to the mobile market - web apps are a thing - and it's easier than explaining the distinction between the two.

I think the distinction has been blurring, anyway. "App" seems like a newer and more trendy way of saying "program", particularly among the younger generation.

I'm still not sure why a new term was ever deemed necessary, even for mobile phones.

Probably because "computer programs" are scary and technical and Apple want wanted to appeal to a broader audience when they started the whole "smartphone" thing. Application and Program are synonymous anyway, and one of those is a lot easier to shorten.

large portions of the code rely on software libraries written in the United Federation.

"I created those libraries for the good of the world,"

I'm wary of this part. The GNU community seems to be aware that libraries has special considerations, which is why the LGPL exists. It's not always used, so it's possible that the programmer simply released the library under a full GPL-equivalent and the problem would remain, but in general much of the GNU community is not actually against their libraries being used by propriety programs, so long as the library itself is kept open-source.

I do agree with your points. I made it "software libraries" being used because I didn't want to go into a terrible amount of technical detail, but I could change it to "reused code" or similar. The RL case was that OpenTrace was created by Singaporean researchers using the BlueTrace protocol, and then Australia's COVIDSafe app heavily copied from OpenTrace rather than creating another BlueTrace application from scratch. Both systems use the BlueTrace protocol, which is similar to this in the manner of "libraries" being reused, but BlueTrace isn't GPL software, it's merely a research paper that was created describing how to implement bluetooth low-energy contact tracing.

It's easier for the few technical people with knowledge of GPL to assume the programmer released their libraries under full-GPL (instead of LGPL) than it is to explain the distinction in the issue and go into detail about how the code is in breach of the license.

Option 3
"The problem here isn't the license or the code, it's that people found out!" whispers a shady @@MAN_3@@ wearing a large black hat. "@@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ decompiling the code is a security risk in and of itself - any malicious hackers could just as easily do the same. We need to encrypt all of our code, allow only trusted developers access, and forbid members of the public from tinkering with it. Any @@DEMONYM@@ that tries to hack government infrastructure obviously has hostile intentions, and we need to treat them that way!"
Validity
All
Outcome
using the "inspect element" tool comes with espionage charges

The first underlined part doesn't work. At least, it's not going to slow anyone down for long. For the code to be able to run at all, the means to decrypt it must be included, so this would only be a speed bump to any serious hackers. It's like improving a store's security by keeping the doors locked and leaving a stack of keys next to the door so customers can enter.

The second underlined part is technically possible, in that you can outlaw anything if you want to, but it would be pretty much impossible to enforce such a law. It's simply far too easy to do in private without anyone finding out about it.

Heh, I was looking at my underlined edit like "how does that not work" before realising you'd underlined other bits.

While it's impossible to fully encrypt and block access to a program that ultimately has to run on a computer, it's certainly possible to make it a lot more difficult, which is what I was going for. You've got a lot more technical knowledge than me, how would you describe that process of making code harder to decompile in suitably correct language? My rudimentary research indicated that this process would involve lots of stuff like removing metadata and debug data; deliberate obfuscation; salting the code with non-functional additions; and replacing variable names with "reserved words" like "class" or "while". I reckon "encrypt the code", while not 100% accurate, is a good enough way of referring to this process without doing into too much detail.

As for the second bit, I'm aware it would be hard to actively enforce, but it would stop any further government-embarrassing leaks from coming out like this. What incentive is there for @@RANDOMNAME_4@@ to reveal that code has been copied if @@HE@@ knows that @@HE@@'ll just get arrested and charged the second @@HE@@ reveals the inner workings of the code?

---

Also, @editors, what's the situation like with em dashes (—) vs hyphens (-)? Are hyphens expected to be changed to em dashes manually, is there some form of auto-em-dashification system (like the auto-smartification system for quotes), or does the game just not distinguish between the two? I'd like to have this maximally-publishable if I'm to submit it as a contest entry, and that would include making the dashes ready for publication too.

[Trotterdam]

Heh, I was looking at my underlined edit like "how does that not work" before realising you'd underlined other bits.

Oops?

I'd actually recommend not using underline in normal text for that reason. Italics and bold are more recommended forms of emphasis in normal writing. Underline originated in technical limitations of typewriters, since typing italics or bold requires an entire separate font, while typing underline can easily by done by overlapping two characters (one of which is _) on the same spot. Most style guidelines advise against underline in any system that has the technical capabilities for other forms of emphasis.

That's actually exactly why I favor underline for "my emphasis" type stuff in quotations: both because it's less likely to clash with existing emphasis in the original text, and because the "no actually changing the font" thing fits thematically with the idea of adding emphasis after-the-fact to already-existing text (even though I'm typing on an architecture where the distinction is superficial). The other formatting I sometimes use for this is changing the background color, like highlighting with a magic marker - same idea, it's something that I could have done on a hardcopy, and it looks like it's adding to the text rather than changing it.

My rudimentary research indicated that this process would involve lots of stuff like removing metadata and debug data;

Most publicly-released programs already lack this data.