3 ms·

Point (3a) seems to be explicitly protecting copyleft. A copyleft license is basically (IANAL) a commercially negotiated contract. It just happens that the nego

by 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.

by scythe 8y ago

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.