SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The TPP E-Commerce chapter has a provision banning requirements to transfer or provide access to software source code. This applies to "mass market software."
Article 14.17: Source Code
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.
2. For the purposes of this Article, software subject to paragraph 1 is limited to mass-market software or products containing such software and does not include software used for critical infrastructure.
3. Nothing in this Article shall preclude:
(a) the inclusion or implementation of terms and conditions related to the provision of source code in commercially negotiated contracts; or
(b) a Party from requiring the modification of source code of software necessary for that software to comply with laws or regulations which are not inconsistent with this Agreement.
4. This Article shall not be construed to affect requirements that relate to patent applications or granted patents, including any orders made by a judicial authority in relation to patent disputes, subject to safeguards against unauthorised disclosure under the law or practice of a Party.I'm wondering how the GPL fares here, and how much money Microsoft spent lobbying to get this included in the TPP, or if the NSA has a role in this. One aspect of this provision is that governments cannot insist on source code transparency, for mass market software, even to address concerns over security or interoperability.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday November 07 2015, @05:35AM
No, really -- that's a serious question. If anything it would prevent other nations from being able to spy on people with "mass-market" software or reverse-engineer their own copies of the application.
Furthermore, I don't see how this would have any effect on open-source.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by DrkShadow on Saturday November 07 2015, @06:02AM
Last I read it, the GPL explicitly states that you don't need to agree to the license to use the software. Further, it dictates that you must offer for distribution the source code and any changes to the source code if you distribute the binaries from the source code.
In the latter part, consider a _portion_ of the license being struck down -- the portion that says you must distribute the source code, as the TPP declares this particular clause illegal. As the remainder of the license could allowed to stand, suddenly every GPL-licensed piece of software is BSD-licensed. Everyone/thing can use the Linux kernel without distributing source, Microsoft can distribute Rsync without its proprietary changes, Apple can include BTRFS support, and so on.
This clause would quite possibly lead to the death of the GPL -- assuming that _this_clause_ is allowed to be struck while leaving the _remainder_ of the license intact. Failing the previous statement, then you have a prohibition of requirement of access to source code for things like government documents: think oo.org vs MS open XML of a few years ago; MS cannot be required to release the source of its parser/interpreter for document formats to any government that wants to ensure that they're openly and readily available.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2015, @06:27AM
or more likely it will make it illegal for multinational companies to use GPL software, since using it and not distributing source code will violate the license
the GPL might be incompatible with the TPP, but the TPP doesn't mean there can be no GPL
most countries party to the TPP will operate as they always have. only the US where left-wing extremists have taken over the country will suffer
the TPP is just more anti-competitive bullshit from socialist retards, and markets will simply route around it... and then the socialists will blame capitalism because companies took their business elsewhere
eventually the socialist house of cards will fall... it always does
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Saturday November 07 2015, @09:44AM
...GPL software, since using it and not distributing source code will violate the license...
You don't need to distribute (or offer to distribute) the source code if you use GPL software; you do need to distribute (or offer to distribute) the source code if you distribute GPL software as binary files.
...the TPP is just more anti-competitive bullshit from capitalist retards...
...is a better description.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2015, @10:40AM
and...?
oxymoron much, or maybe just plain moron
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Saturday November 07 2015, @12:05PM
You don't need to distribute (or offer to distribute) the source code if you use GPL software; you do need to distribute (or offer to distribute) the source code if you distribute GPL software as binary files.
and...?
That's how you comply with the GPL.
anti-competitive bullshit from capitalist
oxymoron much, or maybe just plain moron
Neither, it's more of a tautology.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2) by cykros on Saturday November 07 2015, @02:23PM
And...this is the issue with the word capitalist. Some use it to mean laissez-faire, unregulated market places, while others use it to refer to those who hold capital controlling the marketplace by whatever means they have at their disposal, thanks to their possession of capital.
It shocks me how little this point is brought up, but hopefully it clarifies matters when folks on the left and right are sounding senseless to each other when talking about capitalism. They're usually not actually talking about the same thing in the first place.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2015, @03:11PM
Capitalism has nothing to do with markets in any way or form. Capitalism refers to private ownership of the means of production, and literally nothing else.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Sunday November 08 2015, @03:40AM
Look up Yuri Bezmenov's talks on YouTube. Former KGB agent. Very enlightening.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2015, @10:43AM
Probably the best post I've seen on soylent in a while. Prepare to get flamed, but good for you!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2015, @03:09PM
Bahahahahahhahahahahaha, that's hilarious. Exactly how many decades ago did you lose touch with reality?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2015, @04:17PM
if you really think TPP is the work of socialist you are stupid and ignorant, go away
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday November 07 2015, @07:00PM
Perhaps by socialist he means companies supported by the government. That was the only way I could make sense out of the post.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 5, Informative) by frojack on Saturday November 07 2015, @06:33AM
as the TPP declares this particular clause illegal
You need to read that again. It doesn't state that in the way you appear to have read it. It does not state what you think it state.
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.
Party = Country
So translated:
1. No COUNTRY shall require the transfer of, or access to, source code of software owned by a person of another COUNTRY, as a condition for the import, distribution, sale or use of such software, or of products containing such software, in its territory.
A contract between PEOPLE such as the GPL is is not a demand from a COUNTRY.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by kanweg on Saturday November 07 2015, @07:18AM
Yes, but interestingly, where does this leave countries when they want to automate their own activities? Will it be impossible for a government to have software developed without getting to own the source code?
In my country, the processing of taxes is a mess because of software produced by IBM that only they can maintain. They can and do charge what they want. A country that doesn't want to be in such a situation will want to have ownership of the software so it can move to another vendor. But with this clause, that will be impossible?
Bert
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday November 07 2015, @08:36AM
This clause only applies to mass market software, and critical infrastructure software is exempt.
In tax software example, the problem is simply a contractual one, between IBM and the government.
A government that did not insist on source code for something so important as tax collection is in a tough position, but has learned a valuable lesson. When the contract for it to be re-written, I wager they won't make the same mistake.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2015, @09:42AM
Does it prevent Governments from saying "we want to only have open source software" as some have done or are doing?
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday November 07 2015, @11:57AM
Of course they can decide to use Linux, just as they can decide to switch from Microsoft to Apple. Even if the clause would forbid them to say it's because of Open Source (I don't think it does, but I'm not a law/contract language expert), that would just mean they have to frame it indirectly.
For example, at present every Microsoft product would be easily ruled out by demanding good Posix support. Posix is a standard not at all related to Open Source, therefore it's a requirement that would not be ruled out by TPP. Add the requirement that it has to run on standard PC hardware, and as far as I can tell, only OSS qualifies.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday November 08 2015, @04:12AM
Posix would rule out almost all Linux distros these days because of systemd.
-----[running and ducking]--- ;-)
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by Alias on Saturday November 07 2015, @09:27PM
Just because the TPP is a "trade agreement" does not mean that it only has an impact at the country level. There is a section in the TPP that specifically allows entities to sue governments for loss of profits.
Imagine the following scenario:
Microsoft rampantly violates the GPL. Joe Blow, author of something released under the GPL, sues Microsoft for violating the GPL. The court rules in favor of Joe Blow because Microsoft violated the terms of the license. The court awards Joe a bunch of money and Microsoft loses a bunch of profit as a result. Microsoft then sues the U.S. government or the government of whichever TPP-signing country this happened in over lost profits.
Neither MS or the governments involved are too worried about this because they know that assigning damages to GPL violation is difficult at best, and the argument can be made that any awards made to the plaintiff should be small, if not simply amounting to legal fees. This argument will probably be made because the entity that stands to lose the money is now the government of the country whose legal system is dealing with the suit instead of the defendant. This has a chilling effect on GPL violation suits because the risk of a countersuit involving huge legal fees being awarded to the defendant is real and the plaintiff wouldn't stand to gain much.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2015, @09:25AM
Essentially, signatories are prohibited from adopting (Free and) Open source software.
If they put out a tender for bids to build a software system, the winner is allowed to keep the resulting source-code secret. The contract is not allowed to specify ahead of time that it will be Free and Open source.
(Score: 3, Informative) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Saturday November 07 2015, @09:47AM
Essentially, signatories are prohibited from adopting (Free and) Open source software.
If they put out a tender for bids to build a software system, the winner is allowed to keep the resulting source-code secret. The contract is not allowed to specify ahead of time that it will be Free and Open source.
"3. Nothing in this Article shall preclude:
(a) the inclusion or implementation of terms and conditions related to the provision of source code in commercially negotiated contracts;"
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 1) by shipofgold on Saturday November 07 2015, @12:52PM
...plus the fact that I doubt that a "party to the TPP (aka government) puts out a tender for "Mass Market software". If a "party" to the TPP puts out a tender for bids, you can be sure it will be classified as "critical infrastructure".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @02:45PM
What does the exemption say "commercially negotiated contracts" instead of simply "negotiated contracts".
The multinationals have had 5 years to craft this treaty in their favour. I suspect if a tender goes out stipulating FLOSS licensing, this will got to court. Or worse, they will simply take it to the extra-judicial tribunal and complain about lost profits for not being able to bid on the contract with proprietary code.