These are rules for States. It has no bearing whatsoever on the GPL.
This prevents a country from forcing somebody like Microsoft or Apple to give up their source code for "inspection" in order to access their market. It also helps to prevent States from demanding and acquiring encryption or other private keys (there's a separate section that also explicitly forbids mandating backdoors be added).
So, as an actual lawyer i actually think i disagree with you in practice.
Imagine for a second that the US gets tough on GPL violators, and says "well, if you want to sell android devices in the US, you have to produce the GPL source code".
Or something even simpler, along the lines of "products marketed in the US must comply with all licensing obligations of software that it contains".
This one actually happens behind the scenes sometimes right now, though you don't see it.
I believe they would not be allowed to do that under this provision.
It clearly falls into:"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."
3 is no exception:
"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;"
The GPL and other open source licenses are arguably not commercially negotiated contracts.
So yeah, it doesn't stop private citizens or parties from doing whatever they want.
It may stop you from being able to create laws and enforce them at import/export time around actually complying with OSS licenses.
Which is really not great, since it in practice means free reign.
You will never get state supported companies in their own countries to comply with licenses. Generally, your only course of action is to try to enforce elsewhere, or ban import/export.
Here, in the case of the US, you will not be allowed to ban import unless all of that open source software is completely US written.
(since the provision limits requiring "source code of software owned by a person of another Party". Of course, what it means by "software owned by a person of another Party" is also up in the air, since most open source software has many copyright owners , so does it mean complete ownership, partial ownership, or what?)
It also would prevent government agencies from demanding i.e. the source code of a car's ECU to verify its safety and emissions behavior.
The only way out of this would be to declare car ECUs (or other systems) as "critical infrastructure", the definition of which I'm sure will be subject to many political tug-of-wars once this is implemented.
I think it primarily bans states from using access to the source code to prevent vendor lock-in. States tend to invest in enormous software projects. If they need specific new features, and the original vendor is unable or unwilling to provide those for a reasonable price, this would prevent the state from going to someone else to continue development. The original vendor will be able to ask unreasonable prices.
When Peru made a law demanding that the state has access to the source code for that exact purpose, Microsoft was upset, because they didn't want to play by those rules, but also doesn't want to lose that market.
"These are rules for States. It has no bearing whatsoever on the GPL."
TPP is designed to give commercial entities equivalent rights to nation states. That's what the 'Investor-State Dispute Settlement' provisions refer to. Under these provisions a commercial entity could 'steal' Open Source code, without the requirement to release the source code. In effect rendering licenses such as the GPL unenforceable. At the very least it may cause a dilution and hinder the growth of the Open Source sector. Now I wonder whose interests that that would advance and who helped to write such provisions.
Just to agree with this point and elaborate: when the text uses the word "party" it refers to a nation signing the treaty, and not people.
So when it says "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 refers to a government.
> It also helps to prevent States from demanding and acquiring encryption or other private keys
boom, encryption done wrong!!
Look at PGP, source code is open. Nobody can crack it yet.
But DO we know if Apple is really on "our" side or are they just marketing it? Well, if our governments could see into the code. They could tell us.
And if you tell me. Well there could be some people working for the government that could leak the code. Well then I tell you, just don't hire people who worked for a company for many years as their lead [[something]].
> Not everything in the TPP is bad.
I go by the rule. If it is a big thing and will alter a lot of stuff. It primarily is bad, very very bad. And they got to convince they are doing good.
There are trade-offs in this. It means states cannot require code for certification, inspection, and continued development in case of abandonment. But it also means that states cannot require code for copying and illicit use.
Just because this clause is completely unrelated to the GPL doesn't make the clause okay. It's still shitty because it blocks democratic governance options to have policies that require source release for various situations (such as requiring Open Source for government software use or making policies that software in schools needs to be Open Source etc)
What I've been gathering is that there is no way the text of the TPP could have been interpreted favorably because people had already made up their minds before seeing a word of it. Every single thing in it is getting the most negative, (often) far fetched interpretation imaginable to fit the predefined narrative. FUD wins the day. FUD always wins the day.
So you're not allowed to mandate that back-doors are added to software. But you're not able to look for them in systems you buy for what might be security or infrastructure systems?
To me, it says a government can not mandate the use of open source software:
"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."
Or am I misinterpreting that? Does this preclude a government from requiring the use of open source software in some cases? IANAL, but I don't think it precludes government USE of OSS, but I think it means they can not have an open source requirement in a bidding process.
On another note, what IS the purpose of this language in TPP if not a direct attack on open source software?
The "parties" of a treaty are governments. This has nothing to do with GPL. This is saying that a government can't say "you aren't allowed to sell software in the country of Frain as a non-Frainian unless you provide the source code for that product (whether to the end user or to the government)". They leave an exception for "critical infrastructure", because it was hard to argue that the government of Frain shouldn't be able to require that nuclear control software come with source code. Essentially, I don't see why this clause is concerning. It is clearly a form of pandering to the interests of software developers reliant on intellectual property rights, but only in a way that seems to me mostly about forcing capitalism on nation states that might disagree with its premise.
I can't see how this about capitalism. Showing source code to anybody (government or end user) does not make you loose your rights to that source code or the compiled application.
This is about freedom and the right to self-determination of governments/citizens (and thus also about democracy).
I would like to point out that our patent system is basically something like this: We as a society will protect your intellectual property rights for your machine only if you show us your blueprints.
> ...mostly about forcing capitalism on nation states..
And these non-capitalist countries are?
All countries are capitalist. They may claim otherwise, but if the party that paid for the means of production makes a claim on the value of the produced goods, then they are capitalist. It doesn't matter if the party that provided the capital was a private citizens or a government. If the workers that produced the goods don't have sole claim on the value of what they produced, the system is capitalist. The only difference in the USSR, Maoist China or even North Korea is that the state tried to monopolize capital.
So in short, if I understand this correctly, the US government (and any other government party to the treaty) will for example be unable to insist that Volkswagen (or any other manufacturer) open source their future emissions control software (as a condition for regulatory compliance) ?
Assuming it falls into the category of mass-market software/product, it would indeed be forbidden as a precondition to sell VW cars.
But if, for instance, VW cars were measured to have too high emissions, I see nothing in this article that would prevent justice from demanding access to the source code to audit it.
Alas I would absolutely prefer states to mandate this sort of source code to be open-sourced, but I think that makes me stand firmly in the minority.
If you cannot analyse the binaries, or, conversely, if the authors cannot obfuscate the source code to the point of being unintelligible, neither of you are worthy as engineers.
"Party" here means party to the treaty, right? So, governments can't require source disclosure (except for critical infrastructure), but this specifically exempts contracts about such from this rule:
> [Nothing in this Article shall preclude] the inclusion or implementation of terms and conditions related to the provision of source code in commercially negotiated contracts
It seems like this wouldn't affect licensing at all, given that licensing is supposedly a contract. Am I missing something?
An interesting side effect of this would be the invalidation of the Nevada law requiring the source code for all electronic gambling machines be disclosed in order to operate in that state.
It seems like it would also apply to new or existing laws requiring the disclosure of code inside proprietary voting machines, medical equipment, and of course, the Volkswagon ECU. Then again, could those things be considered "critical infrastructure"?
The Department of Homeland Security considers the entire
"Information Technology sector" as "critical infrastructure":
That's what I've been wondering. They say these treaties facilitate trade between countries. But it actually looks more like they just shakes things. The result being a new, wild west trade environment in which the rules the players abide to are yet to be found.
The "Party" here refers to a political entity; a Party to the agreement among states.
This is a rule which basically says that governments cannot impose laws that say "thou shalt not sell closed-source mass-market software in this country".
It doesn't translate to "thou shalt sell nothing but closed-source software, and may do so even if it is derived from a copyrighted work whose holders forbid that".
It's a good rule because it reduces government interference in business by a modicum.
If a government wanted to give out Linux PCs to children.
Then, the students could require the government to provide the open source software as it part of the copyright condition of Linux.
But the government couldn't require the distributor of the Linux PC to provide the source code.
What happens? Would it be illegal for the government to buy Linux PCs for civilians?
Note: a Linux PC could be a smart card used for identification, voting, a licence, etc.
Software that is critical for public safety (and it is a lot) should be required to be one file as part of the product certification. If you have coded a safety interlock in software, that software should be viewable by the public. Toyota should have been required to submit their source with NHTSA.
This TPP is such bad news. I've never been politically active enough to want to "run a campaign" but honestly, this thing is really motivating me to take time out of my busy schedule ... I feel like it's such an uphill battle to get this thing defeated.
Does anyone know anything about the authors, Knowledge Ecology International, or their predecessor Consumer Project on Technology (CPTech)? They look interesting but their about page doesn't tell me very much.
Actually this should (and I believe some day will) be mandatory. Everyone who wants to take money for software should be obliged to disclose full source code to purchaser. In case of mass market software it would be just publishing the source code.
As products grow in complexity and corporation grow in power the only way to secure safety of the public would be to prevent corporations from profiting from secrecy.
Doesn't this prevent Nevada and anyone else from demanding source code for slot machines and other gambling machines, to audit it for backdoors and other flaws? The last I heard, they're not even allowed to use off-the-shelf video drivers. Every line of code has to be (theoretically, anyway) audited by gaming authorities.
I suppose those are usually delivered under a "negotiated contract."
So once this becomes law ( and surely it will ) how do these finer points of the law get decided, will it be done by the arbitration panel, ie the high paid lawyers who take turns being plaintiff, defendant, and judge?
If it had hooves and a tail then it could have been a horse.
Seriously, it's difficult to imagine that the process that produced this could have produced anything else. Everything was done in secret. The few admitted to the proceedings were required mafia-style to agree to their generally corrupt direction and total secrecy ahead of time. The later one got in, the fewer scraps one could beg from the head table. The officials responsible are all looking forward to comfortable corporate positions after the whole mess goes into effect.
These observations typically inspire scores of well-informed "this is simply how it is done in these modern times" rejoinders. As if that weren't an even bigger indictment of these modern times. The comparison that comes to mind is NSA-supplied curve constants in cryptography. Sure NSA might not have derived the constants in such a fashion that would leave them able to break cryptography. At this point, however, why would a thinking human being assume their innocence? When rules for the public are created in public the motivations of the rulemakers can be scrutinized by the public, before the public is subject to those rules. Take for example the just-defeated Ohio pot initiative, which was billed as simple legalization but was in fact a permanent pot-growing monopoly for the few farmers who had paid for the advertising. Those rules did not withstand public scrutiny.
From a giant secret proceeding like this, we can be sure that the problems identified so far by EFF, etc. are only the tip of the iceberg.
dak1|10 years ago
This prevents a country from forcing somebody like Microsoft or Apple to give up their source code for "inspection" in order to access their market. It also helps to prevent States from demanding and acquiring encryption or other private keys (there's a separate section that also explicitly forbids mandating backdoors be added).
Not everything in the TPP is bad.
DannyBee|10 years ago
Imagine for a second that the US gets tough on GPL violators, and says "well, if you want to sell android devices in the US, you have to produce the GPL source code".
Or something even simpler, along the lines of "products marketed in the US must comply with all licensing obligations of software that it contains".
This one actually happens behind the scenes sometimes right now, though you don't see it.
I believe they would not be allowed to do that under this provision.
It clearly falls into:"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."
3 is no exception:
"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;"
The GPL and other open source licenses are arguably not commercially negotiated contracts.
So yeah, it doesn't stop private citizens or parties from doing whatever they want. It may stop you from being able to create laws and enforce them at import/export time around actually complying with OSS licenses.
Which is really not great, since it in practice means free reign.
You will never get state supported companies in their own countries to comply with licenses. Generally, your only course of action is to try to enforce elsewhere, or ban import/export.
Here, in the case of the US, you will not be allowed to ban import unless all of that open source software is completely US written.
(since the provision limits requiring "source code of software owned by a person of another Party". Of course, what it means by "software owned by a person of another Party" is also up in the air, since most open source software has many copyright owners , so does it mean complete ownership, partial ownership, or what?)
xg15|10 years ago
The only way out of this would be to declare car ECUs (or other systems) as "critical infrastructure", the definition of which I'm sure will be subject to many political tug-of-wars once this is implemented.
mcv|10 years ago
When Peru made a law demanding that the state has access to the source code for that exact purpose, Microsoft was upset, because they didn't want to play by those rules, but also doesn't want to lose that market.
crdoconnor|10 years ago
Since when is that a good thing?
NickHaflinger|10 years ago
TPP is designed to give commercial entities equivalent rights to nation states. That's what the 'Investor-State Dispute Settlement' provisions refer to. Under these provisions a commercial entity could 'steal' Open Source code, without the requirement to release the source code. In effect rendering licenses such as the GPL unenforceable. At the very least it may cause a dilution and hinder the growth of the Open Source sector. Now I wonder whose interests that that would advance and who helped to write such provisions.
andrewmutz|10 years ago
So when it says "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 refers to a government.
marcosdumay|10 years ago
It means other countries can not have the software they buy inspected for NSA (or whoever else) planted backdoors.
It also means that countries can not ask for source code in a guarantee that the software will remain useful if the company goes away.
What it does not mean is that those countries will stop pirating software. There's no mechanism for enforcing that.
unknown|10 years ago
[deleted]
zwarag|10 years ago
boom, encryption done wrong!!
Look at PGP, source code is open. Nobody can crack it yet.
But DO we know if Apple is really on "our" side or are they just marketing it? Well, if our governments could see into the code. They could tell us. And if you tell me. Well there could be some people working for the government that could leak the code. Well then I tell you, just don't hire people who worked for a company for many years as their lead [[something]].
> Not everything in the TPP is bad. I go by the rule. If it is a big thing and will alter a lot of stuff. It primarily is bad, very very bad. And they got to convince they are doing good.
kbutler|10 years ago
I prefer the more open options.
quadrangle|10 years ago
skwirl|10 years ago
Zigurd|10 years ago
phkahler|10 years ago
"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."
Or am I misinterpreting that? Does this preclude a government from requiring the use of open source software in some cases? IANAL, but I don't think it precludes government USE of OSS, but I think it means they can not have an open source requirement in a bidding process.
On another note, what IS the purpose of this language in TPP if not a direct attack on open source software?
unknown|10 years ago
[deleted]
RexRollman|10 years ago
zxcvcxz|10 years ago
lumberjack|10 years ago
saurik|10 years ago
chronial|10 years ago
This is about freedom and the right to self-determination of governments/citizens (and thus also about democracy).
I would like to point out that our patent system is basically something like this: We as a society will protect your intellectual property rights for your machine only if you show us your blueprints.
simonh|10 years ago
And these non-capitalist countries are?
All countries are capitalist. They may claim otherwise, but if the party that paid for the means of production makes a claim on the value of the produced goods, then they are capitalist. It doesn't matter if the party that provided the capital was a private citizens or a government. If the workers that produced the goods don't have sole claim on the value of what they produced, the system is capitalist. The only difference in the USSR, Maoist China or even North Korea is that the state tried to monopolize capital.
venomsnake|10 years ago
I will just put one copy of windows in a powerplant. Somewhere.
lloydsparkes|10 years ago
unknown|10 years ago
[deleted]
forgotpwtomain|10 years ago
crdoconnor|10 years ago
It will certainly make it a lot easier for VW lobbyists to kill legislation intended to regulate them this way.
Xixi|10 years ago
But if, for instance, VW cars were measured to have too high emissions, I see nothing in this article that would prevent justice from demanding access to the source code to audit it.
Alas I would absolutely prefer states to mandate this sort of source code to be open-sourced, but I think that makes me stand firmly in the minority.
rdancer|10 years ago
MattyMc|10 years ago
randallsquared|10 years ago
> [Nothing in this Article shall preclude] the inclusion or implementation of terms and conditions related to the provision of source code in commercially negotiated contracts
It seems like this wouldn't affect licensing at all, given that licensing is supposedly a contract. Am I missing something?
debacle|10 years ago
And that's about it.
riskable|10 years ago
It seems like it would also apply to new or existing laws requiring the disclosure of code inside proprietary voting machines, medical equipment, and of course, the Volkswagon ECU. Then again, could those things be considered "critical infrastructure"?
The Department of Homeland Security considers the entire "Information Technology sector" as "critical infrastructure":
http://www.dhs.gov/information-technology-sector
igl|10 years ago
cJ0th|10 years ago
wheaties|10 years ago
Xixi|10 years ago
- probably not as a blanket precondition to allow them to sell cars,
- probably yes during the course of a trial if their cars were measured to have too strong emissions.
Not a lawyer either.
PMan74|10 years ago
franzpeterstein|10 years ago
unknown|10 years ago
[deleted]
kazinator|10 years ago
This is a rule which basically says that governments cannot impose laws that say "thou shalt not sell closed-source mass-market software in this country".
It doesn't translate to "thou shalt sell nothing but closed-source software, and may do so even if it is derived from a copyrighted work whose holders forbid that".
It's a good rule because it reduces government interference in business by a modicum.
fastmark|10 years ago
iwwr|10 years ago
unknown|10 years ago
[deleted]
jumperjake|10 years ago
sitkack|10 years ago
kristopolous|10 years ago
akerro|10 years ago
rdancer|10 years ago
hackuser|10 years ago
rdancer|10 years ago
scotty79|10 years ago
As products grow in complexity and corporation grow in power the only way to secure safety of the public would be to prevent corporations from profiting from secrecy.
jchrisa|10 years ago
RIMR|10 years ago
xmly|10 years ago
PostThisTooFast|10 years ago
I suppose those are usually delivered under a "negotiated contract."
sitkack|10 years ago
yourepowerless|10 years ago
akerro|10 years ago
[deleted]
dataker|10 years ago
Sure, TPP uses the power of governments to impose interest of certain corporations.
In the other hand, TPP gradually weakens national governments by limiting their power over the individual.
Had it been restricted to providing economic cooperation and freedom between countries, it would have been amazing.
jessaustin|10 years ago
Seriously, it's difficult to imagine that the process that produced this could have produced anything else. Everything was done in secret. The few admitted to the proceedings were required mafia-style to agree to their generally corrupt direction and total secrecy ahead of time. The later one got in, the fewer scraps one could beg from the head table. The officials responsible are all looking forward to comfortable corporate positions after the whole mess goes into effect.
These observations typically inspire scores of well-informed "this is simply how it is done in these modern times" rejoinders. As if that weren't an even bigger indictment of these modern times. The comparison that comes to mind is NSA-supplied curve constants in cryptography. Sure NSA might not have derived the constants in such a fashion that would leave them able to break cryptography. At this point, however, why would a thinking human being assume their innocence? When rules for the public are created in public the motivations of the rulemakers can be scrutinized by the public, before the public is subject to those rules. Take for example the just-defeated Ohio pot initiative, which was billed as simple legalization but was in fact a permanent pot-growing monopoly for the few farmers who had paid for the advertising. Those rules did not withstand public scrutiny.
From a giant secret proceeding like this, we can be sure that the problems identified so far by EFF, etc. are only the tip of the iceberg.
unknown|10 years ago
[deleted]