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: 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.