
Request: Officially oppose TPP Source Code provision - rstuart4133
http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/2015-November/022243.html
======
dang
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.

------
ajdlinux
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?"

~~~
etherealmachine
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.

~~~
_rpd
> 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?

------
cperciva
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.)

~~~
jonas21
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/)

------
zb
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.

~~~
zmmmmm
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".

~~~
maxerickson
Are there universities that can impose legal restrictions on imports?

~~~
zmmmmm
I don't know, but I'm mostly concerned that "distribution" is included,
because Universities certainly can impose restrictions on that, through
copyright law.

------
dikaiosune
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.

------
jpatokal
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.

~~~
maxerickson
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.

------
zmmmmm
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.

------
Graham67
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.

------
marichards
So does this mean a "Party" cannot refuse closed source software used for
common features in a business, like email or Desktop OS?

