These are rules for States. It has no bearing whatsoever on the GPL.<p>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).<p>Not everything in the TPP is bad.
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.
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) ?
"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:<p>> [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<p>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.<p>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"?<p>The Department of Homeland Security considers the entire
"Information Technology sector" as "critical infrastructure":<p><a href="http://www.dhs.gov/information-technology-sector" rel="nofollow">http://www.dhs.gov/information-technology-sector</a>
The "Party" here refers to a political entity; a Party to the agreement among states.<p>This is a rule which basically says that <i>governments</i> cannot impose laws that say "thou shalt not sell closed-source mass-market software in this country".<p>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".<p>It's a good rule because it <i>reduces</i> 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.<p>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.<p>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?
This shows how the TPP could've been something great.<p>Sure, TPP uses the power of governments to impose interest of certain corporations.<p>In the other hand, TPP gradually weakens national governments by limiting their power over the individual.<p>Had it been restricted to providing economic cooperation and freedom between countries, it would have been amazing.