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: 4, Interesting) by aristarchus on Saturday November 07 2015, @06:48AM
Law. So we have a treaty. That treaty says that all the laws in your country, the ones you have spent generations working out, or have recently had a very bloody revolution to emplace, are now all null and void. Well, that is very nice. But since this "treaty" is not actually between sovereign nations, but instead is between client nations of the heir to the British Empire Upon which The Sun Never Sets, the British East India Company can do whatever it darn well pleases, regardless of what all you, um, what was the classic term? coolies? presume to vote for. The only problem with this, and how many times has this been the case! is a small country that challenged all these corporations attempt to foster their own interests under the cover of law. Yes, this is all about mp3s, and tea.
So, citizens of the world, what is your pleasure? I suggest we make the Boston Tea Party global. We will throw corporations into the harbor, and it will not be a safe harbor. We will deliberately, and with aforethought, ignore intellectual property. We will obfuscate and discombuberate all forms of survellience, because my name is Spartucus, or Snowden, or Runaway1956. We will join Anonymous, since they are the only organization the seems to support the rights of the common person. And, we will take an oath, upon our word, our sacred honor, and our lives, that Microsoft will die. The die has been cast. There is now middle ground in the conflict. You are either George W. Bush, or you are not. So which side are you on?
(Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Saturday November 07 2015, @09:11AM
Provided the copyrights are all owned by corporations that aren't paying royalties to the people that put in the long hours to create it, sure.
If it's more a matter of "I don't want to spend the money I worked hard to earn in order to buy something somebody else worked hard to create," then it would be far more ethical to enjoy and promote the genuinely free music, games, videos, and stories out there, and ignore the creative people trying to earn pocket/rent money with their work. :)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by aristarchus on Saturday November 07 2015, @10:24AM
Shirley, may I call you Shirley? that is not even a possibility. The fact that you bring it up at all makes me wonder. Yeah, that is what all us rebels want, free stuff, rather than freedom itself. If creative people are thinking about money, they are not creating. Sometimes they have to, but it is a distraction from what is important. Besides, really, "royalties"? Who do they think they are? Royals? Weird Al Yankovic, Tinfoil https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-0TEJMJOhk [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by EQ on Sunday November 08 2015, @10:11AM
Bush? Need I remind you he had been out of office for nearly 7 years. Obama owns this giant turd. At least I didn't vote for him either election. Didn't vote for his GOP opponent either since to me they are 2sides of the same corporate owned coin.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday November 09 2015, @12:26AM
No, you needn't remind me. I already remember, you see? But you might learn to read a bit more carefully. The Bush was positing a false dilemma, you are either with us or against us, and I was merely referring to this, and in no way intended to suggest, in word or by insinuation, that The Glorious George the Second was in anyway responsible for the TPP. Although it wouldn't surprise me. Hey, what do you know?, since you obviously must have had this on your mind to have misread me so easily. It's the Carlye Group, isn't it? The Project for a New American Century? Or Americans for Prosperity? What's the frequency, Kenneth????