There's nothing in this about hiring consultants for money. Read it again.
This is about export of technology, which you are doing whenever you post open source implementations of RISC-V technology online. The lawmakers are explicitly concerned that chinese technology companies benefit whenever a US person shares designs or code online. They are specifically, explicitly seeking that all allied countries be able to freely exchange open source stuff, but that the PRC be excluded from this open source exchange.
Here, let me quote it for you: "In response, the United States should build a robust ecosystem for open-source collaboration among the U.S. and our allies while ensuring the PRC is unable to benefit from that work."
As for whether this is achievable? It's not. In a world with global internet, "don't share the stuff you post online with china" can only be implemented as "don't share the stuff you made online." There is no other way. What they're describing is contradictory. You can't have an ecosystem of open source collaboration while ALSO preventing a specific entity from benefiting from it.
It doesn't especially matter whether other countries are on board with this, since the above even prevents US persons from being able to openly share with each other. They can enact the same policies if they want, or if the US wants them to, but it only replicates the same fundamental problem. Nothing can be shared online, on this great global internet, without also sharing it with the PRC.
This isn't even the first time that the US government has attempted something like this. They tried back in the 90's to block export of cryptographic implementations, including open source ones like GPG, to other countries by posting them on the internet. It was rendered a moot point when someone published the source code of GPG under the first amendment in a book as an act of protest.
You’re right that it’s asinine for those politicians to think they can block open source, and I failed to make my full position clear. Yes, you cannot stop open source. I agree with you there.
However, I still feel that this aggressive stance is still good overall as a starting framework for barring people and companies from providing direct, paid, specialized support for China e.g. expertise in building anything related to chip foundries, et al.
This is about export of technology, which you are doing whenever you post open source implementations of RISC-V technology online. The lawmakers are explicitly concerned that chinese technology companies benefit whenever a US person shares designs or code online. They are specifically, explicitly seeking that all allied countries be able to freely exchange open source stuff, but that the PRC be excluded from this open source exchange.
Here, let me quote it for you: "In response, the United States should build a robust ecosystem for open-source collaboration among the U.S. and our allies while ensuring the PRC is unable to benefit from that work."
As for whether this is achievable? It's not. In a world with global internet, "don't share the stuff you post online with china" can only be implemented as "don't share the stuff you made online." There is no other way. What they're describing is contradictory. You can't have an ecosystem of open source collaboration while ALSO preventing a specific entity from benefiting from it.
It doesn't especially matter whether other countries are on board with this, since the above even prevents US persons from being able to openly share with each other. They can enact the same policies if they want, or if the US wants them to, but it only replicates the same fundamental problem. Nothing can be shared online, on this great global internet, without also sharing it with the PRC.
This isn't even the first time that the US government has attempted something like this. They tried back in the 90's to block export of cryptographic implementations, including open source ones like GPG, to other countries by posting them on the internet. It was rendered a moot point when someone published the source code of GPG under the first amendment in a book as an act of protest.