9 ms·

The relevant text from the linked pdf[1]: >Article 14.17: Source Code >1. No Party shall require the transfer of, or access to, source code of software owned

by jasode 8y ago

The relevant text from the linked pdf[1]: >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; To point (1), the text seems like something Steve Ballmer would write to because "GPL is a cancer". To point (2), I wonder if "GNU gcc" is considered "mass-market" or "infrastructure". To point (3), I assume that proprietary software users will want the most narrow definition of "commercially negotiated contracts". This means reading the LICENSE.TXT that states "copyleft" and downloading from github is definitely not a "contract". Therefore, copyleft would be null & void. [1] http://dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/not-yet-in-force/tpp-11/official-documents/Documents/14-electronic-commerce.pdf http://dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/not-yet-in-force/tpp-11/...

tux1968 8y ago
So these aren't accidental consequences of provisions meant to address some other issue. These are specifically designed to attack GPL and other copy-left licenses.
- Myrmornis 8y ago
  Who is behind this antipathy to copyleft? I wasn’t aware it was on the radar of the sorts of entities involved in writing international trade agreements.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  They seem on the surface to be designed to attack “source code as a condition of import license” laws,
- zmmmmm 8y ago
  The original intent was inspired (I think) by countries like China demanding the source code to Windows as a condition of it use in their country. GPL is just collateral damage due to (a) politicians being almost completely ignorant about everything technological, and (b) the whole thing being negotiated in secret with no input. When you put (a) and (b) together, it seems like a miracle if the whole thing is not a disaster.
ISL 8y ago
At first glance, text like this may have been included to prevent countries from attempting to claw source code from closed-source software and cloud vendors. It would appear to be troublesome, at a minimum, for copyleft projects, too.
- sounds 8y ago
  How would a country claw source code from a vendor in another nation, if they did not sign this agreement? File a lawsuit? I suppose the most common method is to seize assets or personnel that are located in-country.
  - ISL 8y ago
    As the provision above states: "as a condition for the import, distribution, sale or use of such software, or of products containing such software, in its territory." A country could state simply: If we can't audit your code, you can't import, distribute, sell, or use it in our country. See: United States vs. ZTE for a hardware example.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > How would a country claw source code from a vendor in another nation, if they did not sign this agreement? By making it a condition of allowing imports of the product, which is why that's exactly what the provision prohibits.
    - EGreg 8y ago
      And why is that so bad? A nation should be allowed to enforce laws to know the source code of its software because otherwise backdoors could kick in at some point, and other nasty stuff.
      - ISL 8y ago
        Such a requirement has positives and negatives, which are dependent upon point of view. From the position of a free-trade agreement, it would be a statement of trust. We trust you enough to be our partner that we won't attempt to claw open your citizens' code if, in return, you don't do so to our citizens' code. Entering such an agreement might be unwise, should a counterparty turn out to be disreputable or irresponsible.
sounds 8y ago
The 11 countries who signed (many still need to ratify the treaty). Alphabetical order: 1. Australia 2. Brunei 3. Canada 4. Chile 5. Japan (already ratified) 6. Malaysia 7. Mexico (already ratified) 8. New Zealand 9. Peru 10. Singapore 11. Vietnam Much of the terms of this treaty were negotiated behind closed doors with "industry leaders" (large corporate interests) invited to attend.
- MisterTea 8y ago
  > Much of the terms of this treaty were negotiated behind closed doors with "industry leaders" (large corporate interests) invited to attend. In other words: Business as usual.
- lopmotr 8y ago
  I wish people would stop wanting to micromanage their governments. Some things, like negotiation, military planning, or crime investigation don't work when all their details are made public as they happen. Trade deals are never secret once they're completed so it's not a cover-up. You elect leaders who you believe will work in your interests and leave them to get the job done. If they do it wrong, you can unelect them or their whole party next time. This actually happened in America when people didn't like the TPP that Obama agreed to behind closed doors and they elected Trump who withdrew from it.
  - fjsolwmv 8y ago
    Why is it so important to have business input into treaties but not important to have consumer input? What if we want to hold government accountable?
    - openasocket 8y ago
      With all due respect to the average consumer (including myself), I don't think their input is particularly valuable. They want lower prices for goods and for people not to be laid off. I don't think the average consumer has much to offer on Vietnamese shrimp subsidies and their effect on the global supply chain. Getting input from businesses doesn't mean blindly following them, but they do have a lot of information to offer.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> This means reading the LICENSE.TXT that states "copyleft" and downloading from github is definitely not a "contract". It's possibly a contract, but it is clearly not “commercially negotiated”, it's a contract (if at all) of adhesion.
- incompatible 8y ago
  My understanding is that a license is not a contract, but simply permission from one party to do something. A license can be part of a contract e.g., when a license is provided in exchange for money. However, if I just plonk an open source license on a bit of software I wrote, there's no contract with anybody. It's unlikely that invalidating an open source license would be of benefit to a user, since they then have no legal right to make copies of the software.
kps 8y ago
I don't see how this has anything to do with license enforcement at all. It only means participating countries can't block the import of closed-source software.
bunderbunder 8y ago
I'd want to get an international law expert's take on this before getting too worried. Based on skimming the preamble, it looks to me like "Party" is capitalized to indicate that, within the context of this document, Party has a very specific meaning: One of the nation-states that has entered into this trade agreement. If that's a correct reading, then this might have some unintended consequences around government open source projects, but, since it isn't trying to place any restrictions on anyone who isn't a nation-state, it wouldn't be that much of a threat to copyleft in general. I think what it's really trying to say is, "You can't pass laws saying overseas companies have to share their source code if they want to sell software or SaaS in your country."
- jasode 8y ago
  >I think what it's really trying to say is, "You can't pass laws saying overseas companies have to share their source code if they want to sell software or SaaS in your country." Your interpretation seems reasonable. I'm guessing OSIA and the Linux Journal are interpreting it like this: >No Party (e.g. GNU GCC) shall require the transfer of, or access to, source code of software owned by a person of another Party (e.g. Australia Atlassian), as a condition for the import, distribution, sale or use of such software (e.g. GCC), or of products containing such software (e.g. GCC), in its territory. The "such software" is misinterpreted as referring back to a hypothetical "GCC" instead of "Atlassian". Your interpretation would be more like: >No Party (e.g. USA) shall require the transfer of, or access to, source code of software owned by a person of another Party (e.g. Australia Atlassian), as a condition for the import, distribution, sale or use of such software (e.g. Atlassian), or of products containing such software (e.g. Atlassian), in its territory. With that interpretation, the text is a response against China and Russia demanding source code from USA and European tech companies. E.g. https://www.google.com/search?q=china+russia+import+share+source+code https://www.google.com/search?q=china+russia+import+share+so... If so, the worry would be whether countries would use the ambiguous wording of CPTPP as a way to ignore copyleft. Ignoring GCC's license wasn't the intention but it becomes the side effect. Organizations like GNU don't have an army of expensive lawyers to fight companies in Australia, etc. I have no idea if this "abuse" of CPTPP is a realistic concern.
kevin_b_er 8y ago
For what purpose were these items added? It looks like a direct attack on open source otherwise.
- Taniwha 8y ago
  it's to stop countries requiring companies from releasing their source code as a condition of use in their countries
scythe 8y ago
Point (3a) seems to be explicitly protecting copyleft. A copyleft license is basically (IANAL) a commercially negotiated contract. It just happens that the negotiations are trivial: the licensor will accept one set of conditions or no deal. More generally, it would seem very out of form for a free-trade deal to include provisions that undermine the freedom of contracts. Contracts are an important part of capitalism, after all.
- tzs 8y ago
  > Point (3a) seems to be explicitly protecting copyleft. A copyleft license is basically (IANAL) a commercially negotiated contract. It just happens that the negotiations are trivial: the licensor will accept one set of conditions or no deal You could just as validly say the same thing about pretty much all mass-market software. Replace "copyleft license" with "terms of service" or "end user license agreement". It's hard to think of any mass-market software that would not be covered under that interpretation, which is a strong hint that the interpretation cannot be right. What I believe (3a) is trying to cover cases where a Party (e.g., Australia) is acquiring software for its own use. For instance, suppose Australia wanted to use AgileBits' 1Password [1] on all the government's desktop computers. 1Password is mass-market software, and this treaty would prohibit Australia from requiring that AgileBits make the source available as a condition of selling to consumers in Australia. But if Australia negotiates a deal with AgileBits to supply Australia's government istself with 1Password, rather than the government simply buying it the same way consumers would, (3a) applies and the treaty does not apply. [1] Picked for this example because it is the only well-known mass market software that I could think of offhand that (1) a government might reasonably want to mass deploy internally, and (2) is owned by a company that is in a country (Canada) that will be a Party to this treaty.
kcolford 8y ago
This phrasing may be slightly deceptive, but in this instance the word "Party" specifically refers to the countries (and/or their respective government) signing this agreement. All in all, it only says that a government cannot demand the source code to a piece of software that is being exported from another country. Although, they can still force a software developer in their own country to give up the source code to a piece of software. It goes on to add some exceptions but is otherwise very inconsequential. I am not a lawyer, but this a paraphrasing of an explanation given to me by someone who is a copyright/securities lawyer in one of the member countries (Canada).
- coldacid 8y ago
  How does one specialize in both copyright _and_ securities law? I could understand copyright and real estate or securities and corporate law, but that seems to be a novel pairing.
pc86 8y ago
I don't think you need to take "the most narrow definition" of a contract to think that LICENSE.TXT doesn't qualify. Especially when you add the modifier "commercially negotiated" to it. I played no role in negotiating GPL.
mcguire 8y ago
I believe the FSF has argued that the GPL is not a contract in order to defend against specifically this problem. Without the GPL, the recipient has no license to redistribute the software. Presumably, that couldn't be enforced in the countries under the treaty, but they would have problems distributing things outside those countries.
kazinator 8y ago
Who the hell has ever been in a position to demand the source code to mass-market software as a condition of its use? "I demand the full, buildable source to MS Outlook before accepting this meeting request!" Still, does making this type of demand have to be made against the law?
- URSpider94 8y ago
  Countries with highly regulated economies dominated by state-run businesses will often make this a condition of winning a government contract. In the sense of, if you want to provide the OS and productivity suite to all of our government offices, you must hand over the source code for “inspection”. When the contract is re-bid in 10 years, you lose out to the new government-owned software company,
bdowling 8y ago
There's nothing to see here. "Party" (capitalized) and "person of a Party" have specific meanings in this document, as defined in the definitions section: "Party means any State or separate customs territory for which this Agreement is in force;" "person of a Party means a national or an enterprise of a Party;" (Chapter 1, Section A, Article 1.3, [0]) So the statement "No Party shall require the transfer of..." restricts what a State that signed the treaty may do to the persons and enterprises of another State. For example, China can't require Microsoft to disclose its source code as a condition to selling Windows in China. Regarding the other quote about contracts, the operative part is "Nothing in this Article shall preclude". So this treaty has no effect on terms regarding source code in commercially negotiated contracts. Even if you are of the misguided belief that FOSS licenses are contracts, this provision does not affect them. Finally, FOSS licenses are not contracts because they do not contain bargained-for reciprocal promises. They are grants of rights, subject to terms and conditions. A FOSS license operates as a defense against copyright infringement. If the terms and conditions are not met, then the license is void. The infringer can then be sued for copyright infringement, not breach of contract. This has two important implications: (1) a court won't order specific performance (a contract remedy) in a case of copyright infringement, and (2) a third party has no standing to sue, because where there is no contract there can't be a third-party beneficiary (only the rights-holder may sue). [0] http://dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/not-yet-in-force/tpp-11/official-documents/Documents/ch1-initial-provisions-and-general-definitions.pdf http://dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/not-yet-in-force/tpp-11/... (Edit: Clarified lack of breach of contract claim.)
- slavik81 8y ago
  I don't think it really changes anything, but there have been cases where the GPL has been considered a contract. https://perens.com/2017/05/28/understanding-the-gpl-is-a-contract-court-case/ https://perens.com/2017/05/28/understanding-the-gpl-is-a-con...
  - bdowling 8y ago
    No. Even in that case, the GPL wasn’t considered a contract. There was an open offer to anyone, essentially, “If you’d like to use this software, either buy a commercial license or abide by the terms of the GPL.” The defendant accepted the offer by using the software and proclaiming that it would meet the terms of the GPL. That offer and acceptance created a contract. So, the GPL wasn’t the contract itself, but provided the terms for the offeree’s performance.
smsm42 8y ago
It says "no Party" - does it mean this only binds the signatories of the treaty - which probably are countries and not individual developers? And if so, I would read it as "we promise there will be no state law to mandate all software in the country be open-source" which seems to be reasonable (even though I never heard about any country trying to pass such a law anyway) not "open source licenses are un-enforceable". Also, it says "owned by person of another Party", so it's mostly even "we promise no import/export bans on non-open-source software", and the intra-governmental actions are not even discussed, only cross-governmental ones. Also (3) says if the government negotiates contracts, it still can require the software to be open-source, it just can't have blanket ban on non-open-source software imports altogether. Am I misreading it or misunderstanding what "Party" means?

by jasode 8y ago

tux1968 8y ago

So these aren't accidental consequences of provisions meant to address some other issue. These are specifically designed to attack GPL and other copy-left licenses.

Myrmornis 8y ago
Who is behind this antipathy to copyleft? I wasn’t aware it was on the radar of the sorts of entities involved in writing international trade agreements.
dragonwriter 8y ago
They seem on the surface to be designed to attack “source code as a condition of import license” laws,
zmmmmm 8y ago
The original intent was inspired (I think) by countries like China demanding the source code to Windows as a condition of it use in their country. GPL is just collateral damage due to (a) politicians being almost completely ignorant about everything technological, and (b) the whole thing being negotiated in secret with no input. When you put (a) and (b) together, it seems like a miracle if the whole thing is not a disaster.

ISL 8y ago

At first glance, text like this may have been included to prevent countries from attempting to claw source code from closed-source software and cloud vendors. It would appear to be troublesome, at a minimum, for copyleft projects, too.

sounds 8y ago
How would a country claw source code from a vendor in another nation, if they did not sign this agreement? File a lawsuit? I suppose the most common method is to seize assets or personnel that are located in-country.
- ISL 8y ago
  As the provision above states: "as a condition for the import, distribution, sale or use of such software, or of products containing such software, in its territory." A country could state simply: If we can't audit your code, you can't import, distribute, sell, or use it in our country. See: United States vs. ZTE for a hardware example.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > How would a country claw source code from a vendor in another nation, if they did not sign this agreement? By making it a condition of allowing imports of the product, which is why that's exactly what the provision prohibits.
  - EGreg 8y ago
    And why is that so bad? A nation should be allowed to enforce laws to know the source code of its software because otherwise backdoors could kick in at some point, and other nasty stuff.
    - ISL 8y ago
      Such a requirement has positives and negatives, which are dependent upon point of view. From the position of a free-trade agreement, it would be a statement of trust. We trust you enough to be our partner that we won't attempt to claw open your citizens' code if, in return, you don't do so to our citizens' code. Entering such an agreement might be unwise, should a counterparty turn out to be disreputable or irresponsible.

sounds 8y ago

The 11 countries who signed (many still need to ratify the treaty). Alphabetical order: 1. Australia 2. Brunei 3. Canada 4. Chile 5. Japan (already ratified) 6. Malaysia 7. Mexico (already ratified) 8. New Zealand 9. Peru 10. Singapore 11. Vietnam Much of the terms of this treaty were negotiated behind closed doors with "industry leaders" (large corporate interests) invited to attend.

MisterTea 8y ago
> Much of the terms of this treaty were negotiated behind closed doors with "industry leaders" (large corporate interests) invited to attend. In other words: Business as usual.
lopmotr 8y ago
I wish people would stop wanting to micromanage their governments. Some things, like negotiation, military planning, or crime investigation don't work when all their details are made public as they happen. Trade deals are never secret once they're completed so it's not a cover-up. You elect leaders who you believe will work in your interests and leave them to get the job done. If they do it wrong, you can unelect them or their whole party next time. This actually happened in America when people didn't like the TPP that Obama agreed to behind closed doors and they elected Trump who withdrew from it.
- fjsolwmv 8y ago
  Why is it so important to have business input into treaties but not important to have consumer input? What if we want to hold government accountable?
  - openasocket 8y ago
    With all due respect to the average consumer (including myself), I don't think their input is particularly valuable. They want lower prices for goods and for people not to be laid off. I don't think the average consumer has much to offer on Vietnamese shrimp subsidies and their effect on the global supply chain. Getting input from businesses doesn't mean blindly following them, but they do have a lot of information to offer.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> This means reading the LICENSE.TXT that states "copyleft" and downloading from github is definitely not a "contract". It's possibly a contract, but it is clearly not “commercially negotiated”, it's a contract (if at all) of adhesion.

incompatible 8y ago
My understanding is that a license is not a contract, but simply permission from one party to do something. A license can be part of a contract e.g., when a license is provided in exchange for money. However, if I just plonk an open source license on a bit of software I wrote, there's no contract with anybody. It's unlikely that invalidating an open source license would be of benefit to a user, since they then have no legal right to make copies of the software.

kps 8y ago

I don't see how this has anything to do with license enforcement at all. It only means participating countries can't block the import of closed-source software.

bunderbunder 8y ago

I'd want to get an international law expert's take on this before getting too worried. Based on skimming the preamble, it looks to me like "Party" is capitalized to indicate that, within the context of this document, Party has a very specific meaning: One of the nation-states that has entered into this trade agreement. If that's a correct reading, then this might have some unintended consequences around government open source projects, but, since it isn't trying to place any restrictions on anyone who isn't a nation-state, it wouldn't be that much of a threat to copyleft in general. I think what it's really trying to say is, "You can't pass laws saying overseas companies have to share their source code if they want to sell software or SaaS in your country."

jasode 8y ago
>I think what it's really trying to say is, "You can't pass laws saying overseas companies have to share their source code if they want to sell software or SaaS in your country." Your interpretation seems reasonable. I'm guessing OSIA and the Linux Journal are interpreting it like this: >No Party (e.g. GNU GCC) shall require the transfer of, or access to, source code of software owned by a person of another Party (e.g. Australia Atlassian), as a condition for the import, distribution, sale or use of such software (e.g. GCC), or of products containing such software (e.g. GCC), in its territory. The "such software" is misinterpreted as referring back to a hypothetical "GCC" instead of "Atlassian". Your interpretation would be more like: >No Party (e.g. USA) shall require the transfer of, or access to, source code of software owned by a person of another Party (e.g. Australia Atlassian), as a condition for the import, distribution, sale or use of such software (e.g. Atlassian), or of products containing such software (e.g. Atlassian), in its territory. With that interpretation, the text is a response against China and Russia demanding source code from USA and European tech companies. E.g. https://www.google.com/search?q=china+russia+import+share+source+code https://www.google.com/search?q=china+russia+import+share+so... If so, the worry would be whether countries would use the ambiguous wording of CPTPP as a way to ignore copyleft. Ignoring GCC's license wasn't the intention but it becomes the side effect. Organizations like GNU don't have an army of expensive lawyers to fight companies in Australia, etc. I have no idea if this "abuse" of CPTPP is a realistic concern.

kevin_b_er 8y ago

For what purpose were these items added? It looks like a direct attack on open source otherwise.

Taniwha 8y ago
it's to stop countries requiring companies from releasing their source code as a condition of use in their countries

scythe 8y ago

Point (3a) seems to be explicitly protecting copyleft. A copyleft license is basically (IANAL) a commercially negotiated contract. It just happens that the negotiations are trivial: the licensor will accept one set of conditions or no deal. More generally, it would seem very out of form for a free-trade deal to include provisions that undermine the freedom of contracts. Contracts are an important part of capitalism, after all.

tzs 8y ago
> Point (3a) seems to be explicitly protecting copyleft. A copyleft license is basically (IANAL) a commercially negotiated contract. It just happens that the negotiations are trivial: the licensor will accept one set of conditions or no deal You could just as validly say the same thing about pretty much all mass-market software. Replace "copyleft license" with "terms of service" or "end user license agreement". It's hard to think of any mass-market software that would not be covered under that interpretation, which is a strong hint that the interpretation cannot be right. What I believe (3a) is trying to cover cases where a Party (e.g., Australia) is acquiring software for its own use. For instance, suppose Australia wanted to use AgileBits' 1Password [1] on all the government's desktop computers. 1Password is mass-market software, and this treaty would prohibit Australia from requiring that AgileBits make the source available as a condition of selling to consumers in Australia. But if Australia negotiates a deal with AgileBits to supply Australia's government istself with 1Password, rather than the government simply buying it the same way consumers would, (3a) applies and the treaty does not apply. [1] Picked for this example because it is the only well-known mass market software that I could think of offhand that (1) a government might reasonably want to mass deploy internally, and (2) is owned by a company that is in a country (Canada) that will be a Party to this treaty.

kcolford 8y ago

This phrasing may be slightly deceptive, but in this instance the word "Party" specifically refers to the countries (and/or their respective government) signing this agreement. All in all, it only says that a government cannot demand the source code to a piece of software that is being exported from another country. Although, they can still force a software developer in their own country to give up the source code to a piece of software. It goes on to add some exceptions but is otherwise very inconsequential. I am not a lawyer, but this a paraphrasing of an explanation given to me by someone who is a copyright/securities lawyer in one of the member countries (Canada).

coldacid 8y ago
How does one specialize in both copyright _and_ securities law? I could understand copyright and real estate or securities and corporate law, but that seems to be a novel pairing.

pc86 8y ago

I don't think you need to take "the most narrow definition" of a contract to think that LICENSE.TXT doesn't qualify. Especially when you add the modifier "commercially negotiated" to it. I played no role in negotiating GPL.

mcguire 8y ago

I believe the FSF has argued that the GPL is not a contract in order to defend against specifically this problem. Without the GPL, the recipient has no license to redistribute the software. Presumably, that couldn't be enforced in the countries under the treaty, but they would have problems distributing things outside those countries.

kazinator 8y ago

Who the hell has ever been in a position to demand the source code to mass-market software as a condition of its use? "I demand the full, buildable source to MS Outlook before accepting this meeting request!" Still, does making this type of demand have to be made against the law?

URSpider94 8y ago
Countries with highly regulated economies dominated by state-run businesses will often make this a condition of winning a government contract. In the sense of, if you want to provide the OS and productivity suite to all of our government offices, you must hand over the source code for “inspection”. When the contract is re-bid in 10 years, you lose out to the new government-owned software company,

bdowling 8y ago

There's nothing to see here. "Party" (capitalized) and "person of a Party" have specific meanings in this document, as defined in the definitions section: "Party means any State or separate customs territory for which this Agreement is in force;" "person of a Party means a national or an enterprise of a Party;" (Chapter 1, Section A, Article 1.3, [0]) So the statement "No Party shall require the transfer of..." restricts what a State that signed the treaty may do to the persons and enterprises of another State. For example, China can't require Microsoft to disclose its source code as a condition to selling Windows in China. Regarding the other quote about contracts, the operative part is "Nothing in this Article shall preclude". So this treaty has no effect on terms regarding source code in commercially negotiated contracts. Even if you are of the misguided belief that FOSS licenses are contracts, this provision does not affect them. Finally, FOSS licenses are not contracts because they do not contain bargained-for reciprocal promises. They are grants of rights, subject to terms and conditions. A FOSS license operates as a defense against copyright infringement. If the terms and conditions are not met, then the license is void. The infringer can then be sued for copyright infringement, not breach of contract. This has two important implications: (1) a court won't order specific performance (a contract remedy) in a case of copyright infringement, and (2) a third party has no standing to sue, because where there is no contract there can't be a third-party beneficiary (only the rights-holder may sue). [0] http://dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/not-yet-in-force/tpp-11/official-documents/Documents/ch1-initial-provisions-and-general-definitions.pdf http://dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/not-yet-in-force/tpp-11/... (Edit: Clarified lack of breach of contract claim.)

slavik81 8y ago
I don't think it really changes anything, but there have been cases where the GPL has been considered a contract. https://perens.com/2017/05/28/understanding-the-gpl-is-a-contract-court-case/ https://perens.com/2017/05/28/understanding-the-gpl-is-a-con...
- bdowling 8y ago
  No. Even in that case, the GPL wasn’t considered a contract. There was an open offer to anyone, essentially, “If you’d like to use this software, either buy a commercial license or abide by the terms of the GPL.” The defendant accepted the offer by using the software and proclaiming that it would meet the terms of the GPL. That offer and acceptance created a contract. So, the GPL wasn’t the contract itself, but provided the terms for the offeree’s performance.

smsm42 8y ago

It says "no Party" - does it mean this only binds the signatories of the treaty - which probably are countries and not individual developers? And if so, I would read it as "we promise there will be no state law to mandate all software in the country be open-source" which seems to be reasonable (even though I never heard about any country trying to pass such a law anyway) not "open source licenses are un-enforceable". Also, it says "owned by person of another Party", so it's mostly even "we promise no import/export bans on non-open-source software", and the intra-governmental actions are not even discussed, only cross-governmental ones. Also (3) says if the government negotiates contracts, it still can require the software to be open-source, it just can't have blanket ban on non-open-source software imports altogether. Am I misreading it or misunderstanding what "Party" means?