[DEFEATED] Protecting Free, Open Source Software Use

[Clever Homo Sapiens]

Pre-emptively approved

Campaign telegrams exist.

"We are aware, and began campaign correspondence with other delegations shortly before requesting approvals here."

Unconvinced this is necessary

"As noted in our correspondence with other delegations, open source software forms a significant portion of the technological backbone of corporations, governments, and other organizations, running their servers among other infrastructure. Additionally, due to the very nature of this software, it is difficult for FOSS projects to attract developers, constituting a labor shortage of sorts in this important sector, with projects often resting on a few overworked individuals. Imagine the consequences if just one developer of a particularly important or used piece of FOSS died or quit of frustration! This is a tentative first step towards ensuring this labor shortage is addressed by protecting individuals' rights to develop and contribute towards FOSS and ensure that projects do not metaphorically or literally go down in flames due to mysterious circumstances. Besides, this is an area that the WA has not historically seen legislation in, which presents an opportunity to further civil rights relevant to this technological era in many nations."

"The people of Bananaistan wholeheartedly support this proposal and rejoice at the blow this strikes at hyper-individualist, exploitative global capitalism."

"We appreciate their support, and expect your delegation to do the same."

OOC: Exactly how is a "right to program" a civil right? This reads more like "right to profit from one's work" which sounds more like pro-trade (free trade). Exactly what civil rights does this advance significantly?

"As currently written, it protects the right of individuals to develop and contribute to FOSS software. By the very nature of this kind of software, it would be difficult for one to profit from it. Again, this is an area the WA has not traditionally legislated in, and this proposal would also help bring the WA up to speed with civil rights relevant to this technological era in most nations."

And does definition (1.b.) mean that the proposal tries to ban prevention of "digital terrorism", that is, you are not allowed to stop people from writing and distributing password crackers, computer viruses and bot programs as long as they use some open source program to create them?

Alternatively the requirement is only for developing the open source code itself, not doing anything with it, which narrows the effect down so far that I seriously question the strength of the proposal.

"In that case, we will add an exception to that definition for terrorism as defined by International law.

And doesn't recommendation #2 self-contradict the definition of FOSS? Copyrighted things are NOT free of costs and freely accessible and such, so the moment a developer of the code invokes their copyrights, their code no longer counts as FOSS.

"Not really. It is often helpful to have a legal framework specifically dedicated to FOSS and like media in order to preserve its freedom and openness. However, I see how this could be misconstrued, and will make specific reference to using copyright law in a way to help keep FOSS free and open source."

OOC: Shifted the conversation to IC to make it more engaging as debate picks up. And I would appreciate if all of this feedback came a little sooner!

[Araraukar]

And I would appreciate if all of this feedback came a little sooner!

OOC: Well I didn't exactly choose to be sick with fever or having the general weather being so hot for a month that it was the equivalent of having a fever. Like, seriously, I don't know if it's a Nordic thing or what, but heat makes the brain just not work properly and thus makes using a foreign language (English) proficiently enough difficult. Weather's now (past few days and next few days) nice and cool (normal Finnish summer weather of around or bit below 20 C), so I've been able to actually think.

[Bears Armed]

OOC
Bearing in mind the fact that FOSS creators are probably only a tiny proportion o member nations' populations, and that much of the operative section here only "Strongly recommends" action, I definitely would say 'Mild' rather than 'Significant' for its strength.
I'm also uncertain about the actual Category: Given the emphasis on helping to keep FOSS available, and the fact that your recommended criminalisation of misusing FOSS would be enough 'Moral Decency' to counterbalance some of the 'Civil Rights' actually involved, I think that 'Free Trade (Mild)' actually might be the most justifiable definition.

I don't know if it's a Nordic thing or what, but heat makes the brain just not work properly

OOC: It's "an English thing" -- or maybe even "a British thing" -- to some extent, as well: Whether that's due simply to our home latitudes, or is due to the Viking element in our ancestry, I don't know...

[Clever Homo Sapiens]

OOC: Well I didn't exactly choose to be sick with fever or having the general weather being so hot for a month that it was the equivalent of having a fever. Like, seriously, I don't know if it's a Nordic thing or what, but heat makes the brain just not work properly and thus makes using a foreign language (English) proficiently enough difficult. Weather's now (past few days and next few days) nice and cool (normal Finnish summer weather of around or bit below 20 C), so I've been able to actually think.

OOC: Sorry for my impatience. I just got a little annoyed by the fact I submitted and campaigned before getting your valuable feedback. Weather swings impact, I think, most people's cognition, so it's not just a Nordic thing in that regard, but your response to heat in particular might be.

OOC
Bearing in mind the fact that FOSS creators are probably only a tiny proportion o member nations' populations, and that much of the operative section here only "Strongly recommends" action, I definitely would say 'Mild' rather than 'Significant' for its strength.
I'm also uncertain about the actual Category: Given the emphasis on helping to keep FOSS available, and the fact that your recommended criminalisation of misusing FOSS would be enough 'Moral Decency' to counterbalance some of the 'Civil Rights' actually involved, I think that 'Free Trade (Mild)' actually might be the most justifiable definition.

OOC: Given that Araraukar said the same thing, I'll change the category to Free Trade. However, if I do change the category, should I make specific reference to trade/commerce, or it it fine as-is?

[Bears Armed]

OOC
Bearing in mind the fact that FOSS creators are probably only a tiny proportion o member nations' populations, and that much of the operative section here only "Strongly recommends" action, I definitely would say 'Mild' rather than 'Significant' for its strength.
I'm also uncertain about the actual Category: Given the emphasis on helping to keep FOSS available, and the fact that your recommended criminalisation of misusing FOSS would be enough 'Moral Decency' to counterbalance some of the 'Civil Rights' actually involved, I think that 'Free Trade (Mild)' actually might be the most justifiable definition.

OOC: Given that Araraukar said the same thing, I'll change the category to Free Trade. However, if I do change the category, should I make specific reference to trade/commerce, or it it fine as-is?

OOC: expand the "Concerned" clause's "to repay" into "to encourage and repay", and that would be good enough for me, but I can't guarantee that the rest of GenSec would agree... We need to get some more of them to comment here.

Also, in any case, probably the definition of "FOSS" should be the first clause of all, directly under "The World Assembly," (and changed, therefore, from "Defines" to "Defining"...).

[Clever Homo Sapiens]

OOC: expand the "Concerned" clause's "to repay" into "to encourage and repay", and that would be good enough for me, but I can't guarantee that the rest of GenSec would agree... We need to get some more of them to comment here.

Also, in any case, probably the definition of "FOSS" should be the first clause of all, directly under "The World Assembly," (and changed, therefore, from "Defines" to "Defining"...).

OOC: Took care of it, and I hope to hear other GenSec opinions soon. On another note, I think I could make recommendation #2 a requirement... would that make it gain or lose support?

[Clever Homo Sapiens]

Bump.

[Araraukar]

Bump.

OOC: You really don't need to bump if your proposal hasn't fallen off the first page.

But I question your chosen title. Are you trying to protect the Madagascarian carnivore software or its creators here? Because the active clauses have rights of individuals, banning actions of individuals against actions of other individuals, and then again rights of individuals. You don't really do any recognizing or protecting of the software itself. Even the first of the recommendation clauses (you might want to number the active clauses so that the Requires is clause 1, the strongly recommends is clause 2 and its two subclauses are a. and b.) concerns the actions against the actions of others. The software isn't protected, its use is.

So maybe rename it, in all its simplicity, as "Protecting Free Open Source Software Use". That would be better than using the acronym in the title, would be more in line with the contents and everyone would know at one glance at the title what the topic is about.

Also, put "Hereby" on its own line between preamble and active clauses to make it easier to distinguish one from the other.

Oh and your opening line should be reorganized as "Defining Free Open Source Software (FOSS), as software which is both". Define the thing that it is, not the acronym. The acronym is just for making character count less, later. I dropped the "and" from it, given the acronym isn't FAOSS.

And finally, the coding of your definition section looks off because you're not using the list code to its full extent. Here's a repair suggestion (with the altered wording):

Code: Select all

[box]Defining Free Open Source Software (FOSS), as software which is both:
[list=1][*]Free of cost(s) and largely free of restrictions in regards to anything performed on, for, or with the software (such as its usage, modification, and distribution), particularly in comparison to non-FOSS software, including both:
[list=a][*]commercial (i.e. for profit), purposes, and
[*]purposes which may be illegal in other jurisdictions, with the exception of (digital) terrorism as defined by international law, and[/list]
[*]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,[/list][/box]

That looks like this:

Defining Free Open Source Software (FOSS), as software which is both:

1. Free of cost(s) and largely free of restrictions in regards to anything performed on, for, or with the software (such as its usage, modification, and distribution), particularly in comparison to non-FOSS software, including both:
   
   1. commercial (i.e. for profit), purposes, and
   2. purposes which may be illegal in other jurisdictions, with the exception of (digital) terrorism as defined by international law, and
2. 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,

It looks more professional to my eye at least. The same goes for your strongly recommends list. If you need help, let me know, I can put in another code box for you to copy.

[Clever Homo Sapiens]

It looks more professional to my eye at least. The same goes for your strongly recommends list. If you need help, let me know, I can put in another code box for you to copy.

OOC: I think I did it right, but could you confirm? On that note, other than Araraukar and myself, does anybody else view the formatting changes as an improvement? Also, what do you all think of making recommendation b (establishing a legal framework) a requirement, and do you think that change would make the proposal lose or gain support?

[Berhakonia]

I'm gonna follow this thread. There's a lot of room for improvement, but right now, I don't see any reason to support this bill.

[Clever Homo Sapiens]

I'm gonna follow this thread. There's a lot of room for improvement, but right now, I don't see any reason to support this bill.

"Well, there are particularly popular examples of free and open source software across the modern world, which run pretty much everything you can think of. That in mind, we think it would behoove modern societies (which it seems a majority of WA members are) to ensure that individuals and other entities have the right to use, modify, distribute etc. FOSS, as it evidently forms a technological backbone of said societies. As a result, we believe that this proposal is worthy of supporting."

OOC: Also, please share any feedback you might have!

[Berhakonia]

I'm gonna follow this thread. There's a lot of room for improvement, but right now, I don't see any reason to support this bill.

"Well, there are particularly popular examples of free and open source software across the modern world, which run pretty much everything you can think of. That in mind, we think it would behoove modern societies (which it seems a majority of WA members are) to ensure that individuals and other entities have the right to use, modify, distribute etc. FOSS, as it evidently forms a technological backbone of said societies. As a result, we believe that this proposal is worthy of supporting."

OOC: Also, please share any feedback you might have!

The problem is more with the fact that bill currently doesn't guarentee any of these freedoms to any meaningful degree, especially not with the vagueness of section 2a.

[Clever Homo Sapiens]

The problem is more with the fact that bill currently doesn't guarentee any of these freedoms to any meaningful degree, especially not with the vagueness of section 2a.

"We believe that the changes we made are an improvement. Also, does anybody see an issue with requirement b? We are starting to have second thoughts about it."

[Araraukar]

OOC post.

Title: Protecting Free and Open Source Software Use

Why are you putting in the "and" there and the definition? You're not talking about "free software and open source software" as two separate things, after all. Also, the submission form capitalizes each word's first letter of the title.

Free of cost(s) and largely free of restrictions

I think you can make it just "free of cost" as "cost" can be uncountable as well.

recognize and protect the right of individuals and entities to, for any purpose other than digital terrorism:

I'd say "for any legal purpose" and leave digital terrorism out, since that would be one of the illegal purposes, but is not itself a catch-all for all illegal purposes.

run FOSS as they wish

I really feel something like "on a system they have the right to do so" (clumsy wording but hopefully you get what I mean) should be added to the end of that. I can easily think of schools wanting to, for example, restrict people from running whatever scripts on the school computers.

(re)distribute original and modified copies of FOSS

You can just drop the "(re)", as redistribution is still distribution and the latter term is more inclusive.

However, since the very next clause bit talks about copyrights, this kinda clashes with it. I know many open source things in RL just ask you to keep the GNU license in the files of the software, but even that would contradict "requires member nations protect the right of individuals to modify and distribute copies of (the software)", though if you add the "for any legal purpose", then it could easily be said to be legal only with the license attached and this problem wouldn't exist.

Strongly Recommends that all member nations:

1. criminalize the act of intentionally acting against FOSS contribution, usage, modification, distribution, etc., including sabotage by for-profit and government software developers.

You don't really need a sublist when you have only one subclause. Just simply write it out as "Strongly recommends that all member nations criminalize the act of intentionally acting against FOSS contribution, usage, modification, distribution, etc., including sabotage by for-profit and government software developers." (Also no reason to capitalize "recommends".)

But since you asked, you did use the list code correctly.

[Clever Homo Sapiens]

"We believe you'll enjoy our most recent changes."

OOC: I'm back from the dead, baby!

[Makko Oko]

"We're 100% against this resolution as it appears to attempt to harm government software development including but not limited to:

- Websites
- Applications
- API's

Not to mention the security concerns we see with this resolution should it pass for government services such as e-filing, medical record checks, etc. because the code was forced to be open sourced via this resolution and if not that, looks to force government development to be halted and makes governments use purely FOSS software. It's a form of blackmail in that if a FOSS developer asks a government to use their code to make it more popular, and the government says no, that would technically be criminalized." - The Makko Oko Ministry Of Diplomatic Affairs, World Assembly Affairs Division

[The Orwell Society]

Against, same as above.

[Clever Homo Sapiens]

"We're 100% against this resolution as it appears to attempt to harm government software development

"With all due respect, all the resolution requires is that government does not impinge upon the right of individuals and other entities to use, develop, etc. FOSS for all legal purposes, and develop appropriate legal frameworks to ensure FOSS developers can preserve the freedom and openness of their works via existing copyright laws.

If your objections are related to the sole recommendation, all it asks is governments criminalize FOSS sabotage, but does not preclude or discourage them or other entities from developing their own software, or force them to use FOSS in any circumstances."

[Makko Oko]

"We're 100% against this resolution as it appears to attempt to harm government software development

"With all due respect, all the resolution requires is that government does not impinge upon the right of individuals and other entities to use, develop, etc. FOSS, and develop appropriate legal frameworks to ensure FOSS developers can preserve the freedom and openness of their works.

If your objections are related to the sole recommendation, all it asks is governments criminalize FOSS sabotage, but does not preclude or discourage them or other entities from developing their own software."

"So a FOSS developer, could, in hindsight, develop code that infringes upon a government's national security or defenses (such as hacking or exploiting a vulnerability) and it would be legal? Violations of national security are not technically speaking digital terrorism, but it is a high crime. What about if a FOSS developer included things such as links to files that damage national security within their code, would that be legal? Still 100% against this resolution." - The Makko Oko Ministry Of Diplomatic Affairs, World Assembly Affairs Division

[Clever Homo Sapiens]

"So a FOSS developer, could, in hindsight, develop code that infringes upon a government's national security or defenses (such as hacking or exploiting a vulnerability) and it would be legal? Violations of national security are not technically speaking digital terrorism, but it is a high crime. What about if a FOSS developer included things such as links to files that damage national security within their code, would that be legal? Still 100% against this resolution." - The Makko Oko Ministry Of Diplomatic Affairs, World Assembly Affairs Division

"We believe that would be a violation of international law, but we will rephrase our definition of FOSS to ensure purposes which it can be used for must be legal under international law. Further, we believe international law is included under "for any legal purpose", "on computer systems where they are legally entitled to", and " legal activities involving FOSS"."

[West Barack and East Obama]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Full support. In fact, we should mandate that everything be open source. Then we won't have to deal with crap like what 'Macrohard' used to push out.

[Clever Homo Sapiens]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Full support. In fact, we should mandate that everything be open source. Then we won't have to deal with crap like what 'Macrohard' used to push out.

"We appreciate your enthusiastic support. If other delegations don't have any suggestions for improvement, we will submit this for quorum and begin campaign correspondence shortly."

[Clever Homo Sapiens]

"We have submitted this proposal. If you are a delegate, and have not already approved this proposal, we highly recommend you do so."

[Tinhampton]

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

[Clever Homo Sapiens]

OOC: Good catch!