5 ms·

>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

by 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.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
atheriel 8y ago
My understanding (granted, second-hand from international copyright law experts) is that this is the correct interpretation: Microsoft does not want Chinese or Russian governments demanding the source code of Windows. I'm extremely skeptical of the Linux Journal's claims here. As per usual in international trade agreements, this provision merely codifies the present status quo. There's no reason to expect that it will affect the GPL.
jcranmer 8y ago
> 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. How is it ambiguous? The treaty contains a definition of "Party": > Party means any State or separate customs territory for which this Agreement is in force; To argue that this means that GNU cannot enforce the GPL would be to argue that GNU is a state or a customs territory that signed the treaty.
- jasode 8y ago
  >How is it ambiguous? The treaty contains a definition of "Party" I'm guessing it's because "commercially negotiated contract" in subsection 3a seems to use another (inferred) meaning of "party" such as a commercial business and not a country. (Text is "a person of another Party".) So one side of that "contract" is not a country. (E.g. Microsoft Windows is not the USA.) >To argue that this means that GNU cannot enforce the GPL would be to argue that GNU is a state Since CPTPP is a trade agreement, maybe an analogy is the NAFTA trade agreement[1]. Even though Boeing is not a signatory on the treaty, the USA signed it so Boeing is prohibited from certain practices with Canada and Mexico. Although "party" is literally defined as "country", it applies to the businesses in within a country. [1] https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/laws/italaw6187%286%29.pdf https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/laws/italaw6187%2...
  - slavik81 8y ago
    > "commercially negotiated contract" in subsection 3a seems to use another (inferred) meaning of "party" such as a commercial business and not a country. (Text is "a person of another Party".) It's the same definition. "A person of another Party" is "a person from another country."
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - 8y ago
paulie_a 8y ago
Let's be honest, China a Russia simply steal the code anyways.
- lolc 8y ago
  Here's how it will go down: China will steal GCC from GNU. Turns out the GNU people are really bad at guarding their Property. Then Russia steals GCC from China to demand ransom. Redhat will pay, it's their business after all. Bad times ahead I tell you...
smsm42 8y ago
I wonder why LJ would consider GNU a party to the CPTPP? They certainly didn't sign it.

by jasode 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

atheriel 8y ago

My understanding (granted, second-hand from international copyright law experts) is that this is the correct interpretation: Microsoft does not want Chinese or Russian governments demanding the source code of Windows. I'm extremely skeptical of the Linux Journal's claims here. As per usual in international trade agreements, this provision merely codifies the present status quo. There's no reason to expect that it will affect the GPL.

jcranmer 8y ago

> 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. How is it ambiguous? The treaty contains a definition of "Party": > Party means any State or separate customs territory for which this Agreement is in force; To argue that this means that GNU cannot enforce the GPL would be to argue that GNU is a state or a customs territory that signed the treaty.

jasode 8y ago
>How is it ambiguous? The treaty contains a definition of "Party" I'm guessing it's because "commercially negotiated contract" in subsection 3a seems to use another (inferred) meaning of "party" such as a commercial business and not a country. (Text is "a person of another Party".) So one side of that "contract" is not a country. (E.g. Microsoft Windows is not the USA.) >To argue that this means that GNU cannot enforce the GPL would be to argue that GNU is a state Since CPTPP is a trade agreement, maybe an analogy is the NAFTA trade agreement[1]. Even though Boeing is not a signatory on the treaty, the USA signed it so Boeing is prohibited from certain practices with Canada and Mexico. Although "party" is literally defined as "country", it applies to the businesses in within a country. [1] https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/laws/italaw6187%286%29.pdf https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/laws/italaw6187%2...
- slavik81 8y ago
  > "commercially negotiated contract" in subsection 3a seems to use another (inferred) meaning of "party" such as a commercial business and not a country. (Text is "a person of another Party".) It's the same definition. "A person of another Party" is "a person from another country."
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - 8y ago

paulie_a 8y ago

Let's be honest, China a Russia simply steal the code anyways.

lolc 8y ago
Here's how it will go down: China will steal GCC from GNU. Turns out the GNU people are really bad at guarding their Property. Then Russia steals GCC from China to demand ransom. Redhat will pay, it's their business after all. Bad times ahead I tell you...

smsm42 8y ago

I wonder why LJ would consider GNU a party to the CPTPP? They certainly didn't sign it.