undefined | Better HN

0 pointsvonmoltke10y ago0 comments

> 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.

The treaty specifically states a party cannot compel the owner to reveal the source code. Arguably someone violating the GPL or similar license is not the actual owner of the code.

0 comments

7 comments · 2 top-level

DannyBee10y ago· 4 in thread

I'm not sure why you believe this. I quoted the actual text:

"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."

It does not say no party can compel an owner, it says no party can compel access to the source code owned by person of another party. That is not "no party can compel the owner" it's "no party can compel access to source code that meets certain conditions".

Period. There is no "nobody can compel the owner" part in there that i see.

The only reference to ownership is around a pre-req to compulsion. IE if you break it down, it says:

"unless the software that meets the following conditions, you can't compel access to code

Conditions:

A. It's owned by a citizen of the party

B. It's not being done as a condition for the import, distribution, sale, or use of such software, or products containing such software, in its territory"

vonmoltkeOP10y ago

I believe this because the overly-broad interpretation you are taking is ludicrous. It would prevent code owners from asking other countries to take enforcement actions for them, regardless of what license the code was under, if they suspect someone in another party nation misappropriated their code.

It would essentially mean software authors could not enforce their copyright against infringers in other party nations if proving infringement required access to the author's or infringer's source code.

DannyBee10y ago

"I believe this because the overly-broad interpretation you are taking is ludicrous."

Of which part.

I think the part about whether you can compel an owner is cut and dry. It says nothing about compelling owners. Period.

The part about countries being able to make laws about import/export, also very cut and dry. This is very clearly covered.

The part about countries not being able to have courts order source access, yes, is a broad interpretation, but honestly, not inconsistent with how this kind of wording tends to be read by courts.

Even if you cut the last part out, the other two are still very very worrying.

2 more replies

cyber10y ago

Yes, it means that some states can allow rampant piracy, and other states who are aggrieved can not block the import from the offending stats. Which is precisely what some of those states want.

s73v3r10y ago

Party means party to the treaty. As in, a country. It has no bearing on private sector agreements, such as the GPL.

mbreese10y ago· 1 in thread

The are the owner of the code that they wrote that depends on the GPL code... so they might not own all of the code, but they presumably own some of the code. And that's usually the most interesting bits that one might need (when modifying a device, for example).

I still don't see how the State would be involved here though...

DannyBee10y ago

States make laws about import and export, and ignoring that, are the enforcement mechanism. The legal authority under which things happen is going to be "The party".

IE If i get a federal judge to order source code access, do you think I did it, or instead that a party (IE US) just compelled access?

(Hint: The law mostly says the latter ;p. That's why i can get law enforcement to enforce it. Because it's an order of the government, not an order of me)

Now, whether it meets the other conditions for the "no compulsion" part, that depends on the circumstances.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

7 comments · 2 top-level

DannyBee10y ago· 4 in thread

I'm not sure why you believe this. I quoted the actual text:

Period. There is no "nobody can compel the owner" part in there that i see.

The only reference to ownership is around a pre-req to compulsion. IE if you break it down, it says:

"unless the software that meets the following conditions, you can't compel access to code

Conditions:

A. It's owned by a citizen of the party

B. It's not being done as a condition for the import, distribution, sale, or use of such software, or products containing such software, in its territory"

vonmoltkeOP10y ago

DannyBee10y ago

"I believe this because the overly-broad interpretation you are taking is ludicrous."

Of which part.

I think the part about whether you can compel an owner is cut and dry. It says nothing about compelling owners. Period.

The part about countries being able to make laws about import/export, also very cut and dry. This is very clearly covered.

The part about countries not being able to have courts order source access, yes, is a broad interpretation, but honestly, not inconsistent with how this kind of wording tends to be read by courts.

Even if you cut the last part out, the other two are still very very worrying.

2 more replies

cyber10y ago

Yes, it means that some states can allow rampant piracy, and other states who are aggrieved can not block the import from the offending stats. Which is precisely what some of those states want.

s73v3r10y ago

Party means party to the treaty. As in, a country. It has no bearing on private sector agreements, such as the GPL.

mbreese10y ago· 1 in thread

I still don't see how the State would be involved here though...

DannyBee10y ago

States make laws about import and export, and ignoring that, are the enforcement mechanism. The legal authority under which things happen is going to be "The party".

IE If i get a federal judge to order source code access, do you think I did it, or instead that a party (IE US) just compelled access?

(Hint: The law mostly says the latter ;p. That's why i can get law enforcement to enforce it. Because it's an order of the government, not an order of me)

Now, whether it meets the other conditions for the "no compulsion" part, that depends on the circumstances.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse