RefugiaBoard

Dacay wrote:

I hate all of you.

Moon details his FA policy for the third quarter

Dacay wrote:

I hate all of you.

Ah, an alli-hater!

Did I miss a meeting where we all decided to break out the gator puns?

Gildendal wrote:

Did I miss a meeting where we all decided to break out the gator puns?

It's part of a charity initiative to support animals displaced from the Florida wetlands.

Junitaki-cho wrote:

It's part of a charity initiative to support animals displaced from the Florida wetlands.

Click to show...

We're calling it Gator Aid.

cool. Also bruh.

Desenteres wrote:

Ah, an alli-hater!

(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

Gildendal wrote:

Did I miss a meeting where we all decided to break out the gator puns?

Nah, Lethodus is just an influencer.

I'll just go ahead and put this in since I already explained my vote in the server and the region is still heavily for. I think Lily deserves a condemn, but I think the proposal currently at vote has some factual errors and they're enough to make me vote against.

Dacay wrote:

(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

┬─┬ノ( º _ ºノ)

...sir, this is a regional message board.

Sylh Alanor wrote:

I'll just go ahead and put this in since I already explained my vote in the server and the region is still heavily for. I think Lily deserves a condemn, but I think the proposal currently at vote has some factual errors and they're enough to make me vote against.

On the other hand, I rise this counterpoint: shiny badge!

Barbeque sauce on pizza yum

Yeah that poll is definitely making me hungry.

as an Italian: ewwww (⇀‸↼‶)

but as a degenerate? yeah, potatoes on pizza are fine

New Eden of Innocence wrote:

as an Italian: ewwww (⇀‸↼‶)

but as a degenerate? yeah, potatoes on pizza are fine

It was a trip to Italy that introduced me to the concept of potato on pizza and it was the best thing I've ever had. I am always down for any food that includes two carbs ^^

Hey friendos, the first World Assembly proposal of my term is here - Protecting Free, Open Software Use!

Open software is far from my area of expertise but I'll do my best to comment on this :3 I did look up some definitions and the thread to get a better sense of the proposal, which was pretty fun to do! But anyways, let's get into it!

Proposal: (page=UN_view_proposal/id=clever_homo_sapiens_1655677695)
Thread: (viewtopic.php?f=9&t=503558)
ETA to Vote: ~4 hours

The proposal essentially establishes a legal right for anyone to utilize, modify, and distribute any software which the resolution defines as being free and open (I.e. anyone can generally access, use, modify, & distribute the source code or modifications thereof without much cost). Additionally, it also forces member states to create laws which allow the usage of copyright systems to ensure modified FOSS (free & open software) remains publicly accessible. (Sometimes, developers of FOSS software may use a copyright license that forces subsequent modified versions of their software to carry the same license to ensure variant software remains open for public access) It also recommends the criminalization of acts against legal actions involving FOSS.

In my opinion, the resolution does the job well in most respects. I also agree with the resolution's findings that FOSS is integral to modern life and thus its usage should be legally protected. However, there are some things that cast doubt.

One of the things that interested me whilst reading the thread was the concerns that protecting the right to use any FOSS could lead to the protection of using FOSS for illegal reasons. The resolution's solution to this is to make it so any software that is made for purposes of contradicting WA law is not considered FOSS. The right to utilize FOSS is also protected for only legal purposes. I think the proposal's methods to deal with this issue are pretty solid - just thought it was an interesting evolution of the draft!

One thing I have doubts on is the final recommendation.

"Strongly Recommends that all member nations criminalize the act of intentionally acting against legal activities involving FOSS, including any listed above"

The recommendation is meant to stop FOSS sabotage, per the author. But I feel the recommendation is really broad. What could be seen as an action against a legal activity involving FOSS? Could protests be included? Courts cases? Etc.

And is this an issue considering this is a recommendation and not a mandate? Maybe I'm being too unfair to this clause, Idk.

I think I am ultimately unsure about the resolution due to the recommendation. I think it had a good purpose and does it well, but the recommendation isnt great and I'm not sure how to factor that in.

So how do you all plan to vote on this? What's your nation's thought process? Your thoughts can be as short as a sentence - I just wanna hear what y'all think ^-^

Overly broad; would oppose.

Would criminalise, for example, an employer taking action against an employee for using work equipment and time to work on FOSS in the event this is not what they are supposed to be doing.

This is technically a "legal activity involving FOSS" and any disciplinary action designed to deter the employee is action against this activity design to cease it. The employer's actions would thus be illegal.

I'd also be concerned about the restrictions on modified FOSS. At what point during rewrite/modification of soffware does work no longer count as modified? It's just lawsuit bait and it may end up stifling the use of FOSS by software companies (instead of the current situation where often companies that use a piece of FOSS heavily also contribute features back that add a lot of value).

There's an additional discussion to be had about the rights of the creator. If the original creator(s) licence their FOSS with no requirements on derivatives to be distributed with the same licence or attribution etc, arguably this proposal is arguing that that should be ignored and overridden by a requirement to licence and open source any derivative works from the original software.

Sorry, this is my line of work - I'm 100% behind the principle that FOSS should be unrestricted, and that no state should take action to restrict the use of FOSS. But this goes waaaaaay too far in the other direction.

wrote:

15 minutes ago: The neatherlands ceased to exist.

Farewell Jens!

And everyone you're related to, presumably.

Portmanteau wrote:

┬─┬ノ( º _ ºノ)

...sir, this is a regional message board.

...I refuse to accept this.

(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

Dacay wrote:

...I refuse to accept this.

(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

Oh! I know this game-

(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ ︵ ╯(°‿° ╯)

"15-love"

Portmanteau wrote:

Oh! I know this game-

(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ ︵ ╯(°‿° ╯)

"15-love"

Refugi Slam going on here, I see.

(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻ (╯°□°）╯

Wrangle ejected via RRS 2(c)

Dacay wrote:

Refugi Slam going on here, I see.

(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻ (╯°□°）╯

(° _ °)╯I'd rather stay away...

Desenteres wrote:

Overly broad; would oppose.

Would criminalise, for example, an employer taking action against an employee for using work equipment and time to work on FOSS in the event this is not what they are supposed to be doing.

This is technically a "legal activity involving FOSS" and any disciplinary action designed to deter the employee is action against this activity design to cease it. The employer's actions would thus be illegal.

Agreed.

Desenteres wrote:

I'd also be concerned about the restrictions on modified FOSS. At what point during rewrite/modification of soffware does work no longer count as modified?

Yeah, that's a good point.

Desenteres wrote:

There's an additional discussion to be had about the rights of the creator. If the original creator(s) licence their FOSS with no requirements on derivatives to be distributed with the same licence or attribution etc, arguably this proposal is arguing that that should be ignored and overridden by a requirement to licence and open source any derivative works from the original software.

Hm I can see your point yeah. I think that wasn't the intent but it seems it was not written well enough.

Desenteres wrote:

Sorry, this is my line of work - I'm 100% behind the principle that FOSS should be unrestricted, and that no state should take action to restrict the use of FOSS. But this goes waaaaaay too far in the other direction.

No need to apologize, I really appreciate your thoughts! ^-^ And agreed with them xD

Based on your arguments I'll recommend Refugi to vote against. Your concerns on the final clause align with my own, and the additional points you bring up are enough to push me to oppose.

Even if there is a recommendation out, everyone is still free to share your thoughts! I'd love to hear how and why y'all are voting on this!

EDIT: Chatula provided another reason to vote against, as there may be legitimate reasons for nations to illegalize FOSS usage which may be legal by WA law via not being legislated by the WA. This resolution would ignore such national law.

I think this is a good point I didn't consider because I originally made an assumption that WA law would cover all cases, which is in hindsight obviously a really flawed and kinda dumb assumption to make. So yeah xD

EDIT 2.0: I talked with someone and I may have misunderstood the resolution in regards to how it deals with national vs international law. Anything that is FOSS has its right of use protecting in nations where the purpose of use is legal; FOSS that is illegal for usage in a certain country does not have its right of usage protected in that country.

So my edit concern is moot although either way as far as I can tell, still recommending against as the other points still hold merit.

Aephony wrote:

(° _ °)╯I'd rather stay away...

throws a table towards Aephony