[DannyBee]

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

or

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"

[vonmoltke]

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.

[DannyBee]

"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.

[vonmoltke]

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

I was going to argue that, but after thinking about it realized I was making the incorrect assumption that the owner of the source code was the only one who could provide said code. Hence my incorrect interpretation.

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

Not challenging that.

> 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.

If that is the case, I don't see how any state with a decent technology sector would agree to it, because it would allow party states to basically set themselves up as piracy safe havens.

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

I don't think the first is worrying at all without the third. To try to extend the meaning of the first to include legal actions taken in copyright infringement cases would be tantamount to scuppering the very protections other parts of the same treaty are trying to enhance.

[fineman]

It doesn't seem to prevent other reasons for compelling source access. Simply not *as a condition ... sale in the territory".

So you can't (seemingly) require FOSS to access the market at all, but you could compel someone to reveal source for any number of other reasons.

[cyber]

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.

[s73v3r]

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