Request: Officially oppose TPP Source Code provision(lists.linux.org.au)
lists.linux.org.au
Request: Officially oppose TPP Source Code provision
http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/2015-November/022243.html
9 comments
We changed the title from "TPP makes copy left licences illegal". The HN guidelines ask you to please use the original title unless it is misleading or linkbait, so making a title more misleading and linkbait is right out.
A comment I just sent to the list:
"I'm not going to second this request until we get someone slightly more informed to make a comment.
I'm pretty sure that this section does not mean what many people on this list will immediately jump to - I'm inclined to believe that this is about protecting proprietary software vendors from mandatory source code disclosure by states (with the exception of critical infrastructure and regulatory requirements, as it specifies), and will not in any way impact private copyright arrangements such as the GPL.
Any legally minded folk care to comment?"
"I'm not going to second this request until we get someone slightly more informed to make a comment.
I'm pretty sure that this section does not mean what many people on this list will immediately jump to - I'm inclined to believe that this is about protecting proprietary software vendors from mandatory source code disclosure by states (with the exception of critical infrastructure and regulatory requirements, as it specifies), and will not in any way impact private copyright arrangements such as the GPL.
Any legally minded folk care to comment?"
From the text of the TPP:
"Party means any State or separate customs territory for which this Agreement is in force;"
So that would seem to not include citizens or corporations of the State itself.
Edit: This is a good general skill to remember in reading/drafting your own contracts. Capitalized terms usually have a definition in the contract that might be different from what you expect.
So that would seem to not include citizens or corporations of the State itself.
Edit: This is a good general skill to remember in reading/drafting your own contracts. Capitalized terms usually have a definition in the contract that might be different from what you expect.
> 1. No Party shall require the transfer of, or access to, source code of software owned by a person of another Party, as a condition for the import, distribution, sale or use of such software, or of products containing such software, in its territory.
Could it affect the international enforceability of open source licenses?
Could it affect the international enforceability of open source licenses?
I don't understand TPP at all. The way I understand it, it exists as a way to counter China PR's threat. However, how good is a trade treaty that doesn't include China PR?
To me, the very exclusion of China PR makes TPP a non-starter. I know we are supposed to have super massive egos here in the US (and most of us do) but realistically we cannot just try to step around China any more than Europe could create United Nations without involving the US.
To me, the very exclusion of China PR makes TPP a non-starter. I know we are supposed to have super massive egos here in the US (and most of us do) but realistically we cannot just try to step around China any more than Europe could create United Nations without involving the US.
[deleted]
Nonsense. The first three words are important here: "No Party shall...". The Parties to the TPP are the member states, not the persons within those states.
This is entirely about declaring that China can't say "Microsoft can't sell software here unless they give us their source code". (Yes, China isn't part of the TPP. But the TPP is intended to be a model for future trade deals, so there are lots of clauses which have zero effect on the signatories but will affect China.)
This is entirely about declaring that China can't say "Microsoft can't sell software here unless they give us their source code". (Yes, China isn't part of the TPP. But the TPP is intended to be a model for future trade deals, so there are lots of clauses which have zero effect on the signatories but will affect China.)
Exactly. This has long been a contentious issue between US firms and China. IBM recently caved and let Chinese authorities review their source.
http://fortune.com/2015/10/16/ibm-source-code-china/
http://fortune.com/2015/10/16/ibm-source-code-china/
Sorry, but the headline ("TPP makes copy left licences illegal" until the mods change it as linkbait) is nonsense. The actual affect of this section is appears to be to prevent governments ("Party" here pretty clearly means a party to the treaty - read "signatory" if that helps) from making proprietary software illegal.
We can argue about whether that's a good thing, but it has no effect on copyleft, as section 3(a) makes clear.
We can argue about whether that's a good thing, but it has no effect on copyleft, as section 3(a) makes clear.
So, question is, where does a government owned / run entity (say, a university, in some countries sit), wrt being a "Party"? It seems to me this could still bring such entities into play if they are seen as acting on behalf of a "Party".
Are there universities that can impose legal restrictions on imports?
I don't know, but I'm mostly concerned that "distribution" is included, because Universities certainly can impose restrictions on that, through copyright law.
So if I'm not mistaken, "Party" (capital P) refers to a national signatory of the TPP, right? As opposed to "some guy out there." Wouldn't that mean that this would prevent nation-states from requiring copyleft in order to use or distribute that software? Is there even a threat of that? Or is this perhaps relating to potential requirements that you for example share your source code with the Chinese government in order to sell to customers there?
EDIT: As opposed to, for example, GPL requirements that are imposed on individuals by individuals, not TPP Parties.
EDIT: As opposed to, for example, GPL requirements that are imposed on individuals by individuals, not TPP Parties.
The title is flamebait. The clause in question is:
> 1. No Party shall require the transfer of, or access to, source code of software owned by a person of another Party, as a condition for the import, distribution, sale or use of such software, or of products containing such software, in its territory.
The worst interpretation of that I can come up with is that it would be against the treaty to require open sourcing software as a condition of import, which is very far from banning it.
> 1. No Party shall require the transfer of, or access to, source code of software owned by a person of another Party, as a condition for the import, distribution, sale or use of such software, or of products containing such software, in its territory.
The worst interpretation of that I can come up with is that it would be against the treaty to require open sourcing software as a condition of import, which is very far from banning it.
Yeah, in the case of the GPL, the exporting person is the one requiring that the source be available, it's not a condition placed on the import by the importing nation.
Can we get the title un-editorialized? It's pure flamebait. There's some worthy discussion to have about this clause but it's not going to happen with that title.
Local governments, putting IT out to tender, should describe the VALUE of each feature. EG can work in local dialect (Exxx), source code is openly available (Exxx), we can modify and rebuild (Exxx), nearby support teams are familiar with and can do source mods (Exxx). The statement "word processor must be open source" might not match TPP.
So does this mean a "Party" cannot refuse closed source software used for common features in a business, like email or Desktop OS?