Live data from Hacker News

TPP banning requirements to transfer or access to source code of software

keionline.org

61–70 of 162 posts

Re: TPP banning requirements to transfer or access to source code of software

#61
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you can imagine an internal AI that can tell whether it's being watched by the government with arbitrarily sophisticated means. In fact, that's just an extreme example of how VW broke rules. It wasn't, as I think you might be imagining, a case where the emission measuring device was lazy and just took the car's word for it. Rather, the car's software determined that it was being tested (based, I think, on various…

Or even simpler: if $INTERNAL_CLOCK < $PROJECTED_DATE_OF_SALE { fake_emissions; }

I mean that would be a pretty crappy defeat device

Re: TPP banning requirements to transfer or access to source code of software

#62
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you can imagine an internal AI that can tell whether it's being watched by the government with arbitrarily sophisticated means. In fact, that's just an extreme example of how VW broke rules. It wasn't, as I think you might be imagining, a case where the emission measuring device was lazy and just took the car's word for it. Rather, the car's software determined that it was being tested (based, I think, on various…

Or even simpler: if $INTERNAL_CLOCK < $PROJECTED_DATE_OF_SALE { fake_emissions; }

Many states in the US force you to test emissions when you register your car.

Re: TPP banning requirements to transfer or access to source code of software

#63
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Playing the devil's advocate here, but you shouldn't need access to a car's source code to measure its emissions. The test is broken, not the software.

Expounding further - what government agency has the time or money to actually sift through mountains of source code? From a pure financial standpoint, there's no possible way that it isn't cheaper to just measure real emissions than attempt some kind of software analysis for every version of every vehicle on the market. Furthermore, an agency inspecting source code has absolutely no way to tell whether or not that th…

Just as a counterpoint: the Nevada Gaming Commission has plenty of time and money to sift through the source code of every gaming device that gets deployed in NV.

Re: TPP banning requirements to transfer or access to source code of software

#64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America hopes to use TPP as a model for a similar deal with China, so America has insisted on a bunch of rules you'd only expect in a trade deal with a banana republic - like investor-state dispute settlement. At present, "Chinese officials have learned to tackle multinational companies, often forcing them to form joint ventures with [Chinese companies] and transfer the latest technology in exchange for current and f…

The TPP is actually supposed to exclude China and create a competing trade bloc. It was even called the "everybody but China deal" by some people. All part of Obama's "pivot to Asia"... supposedly. However, given the contents of the treaty, I don't think this exclusion is something that really bothers China. China wanted in on the WTO bad. Real bad. China doesn't really care about the TPP.

To quote Obama:

> The TPP means that America will write the rules of the road in the 21st century.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/11/05/trade-tpp-idINKCN0S...

It very much sounds like they’re treating the rest of the world as colonies.

Re: TPP banning requirements to transfer or access to source code of software

#65
post #4

These are rules for States. It has no bearing whatsoever on the GPL. This prevents a country from forcing somebody like Microsoft or Apple to give up their source code for "inspection" in order to access their market. It also helps to prevent States from demanding and acquiring encryption or other private keys (there's a separate section that also explicitly forbids mandating backdoors be added). Not everything in th…

To me, it says a government can not mandate the use of open source software:

"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."

Or am I misinterpreting that? Does this preclude a government from requiring the use of open source software in some cases? IANAL, but I don't think it precludes government USE of OSS, but I think it means they can not have an open source requirement in a bidding process.

On another note, what IS the purpose of this language in TPP if not a direct attack on open source software?

Re: TPP banning requirements to transfer or access to source code of software

#66
post #4

These are rules for States. It has no bearing whatsoever on the GPL. This prevents a country from forcing somebody like Microsoft or Apple to give up their source code for "inspection" in order to access their market. It also helps to prevent States from demanding and acquiring encryption or other private keys (there's a separate section that also explicitly forbids mandating backdoors be added). Not everything in th…

So, as an actual lawyer i actually think i disagree with you in practice. Imagine for a second that the US gets tough on GPL violators, and says "well, if you want to sell android devices in the US, you have to produce the GPL source code". Or something even simpler, along the lines of "products marketed in the US must comply with all licensing obligations of software that it contains". This one actually happens behi…

[deleted]

Re: TPP banning requirements to transfer or access to source code of software

#67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, as an actual lawyer i actually think i disagree with you in practice. Imagine for a second that the US gets tough on GPL violators, and says "well, if you want to sell android devices in the US, you have to produce the GPL source code". Or something even simpler, along the lines of "products marketed in the US must comply with all licensing obligations of software that it contains". This one actually happens behi…

> 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.

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...

Re: TPP banning requirements to transfer or access to source code of software

#68
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or even simpler: if $INTERNAL_CLOCK < $PROJECTED_DATE_OF_SALE { fake_emissions; }

Many states in the US force you to test emissions when you register your car.

if(miles_driven < 10,000) { fake emissions; }

Re: TPP banning requirements to transfer or access to source code of software

#69
post #4

These are rules for States. It has no bearing whatsoever on the GPL. This prevents a country from forcing somebody like Microsoft or Apple to give up their source code for "inspection" in order to access their market. It also helps to prevent States from demanding and acquiring encryption or other private keys (there's a separate section that also explicitly forbids mandating backdoors be added). Not everything in th…

So, as an actual lawyer i actually think i disagree with you in practice. Imagine for a second that the US gets tough on GPL violators, and says "well, if you want to sell android devices in the US, you have to produce the GPL source code". Or something even simpler, along the lines of "products marketed in the US must comply with all licensing obligations of software that it contains". This one actually happens behi…

Some states are beginning to throw their support behind OSS. It seems the "nation-state" has been "soon to be irrelevant" for a while now, but until "soon" arrives, the State is still a primary actor with immense resources and influence. So saying, "these are rules for States" as a way to minmize the importance of this section of the TPP does not make sense to me. At all. It frankly sounds like crazy talk. Sorry, but is does. As software becomes more pervasive and goods and services are delivered by or composed of software more and more, software will take on attributes once associated soley with "real property" and "free speech". As that happens, legal language like this limiting the State's ability, in any way, to legislate software will limit the State's population from having a say over how software should be treated in that population, in that society, in that community.

If the TPP does not impose the same restrictions on contracts between private parties, that is not a benign thing. Private parties includes corporations, and most contests between legal corporations and "individual natural persons" eventually are settled in the interest of the party with more resources, often the legal corporation. Such challenges may play out in the markets or the courts, or it may play out over an even longer period in the legislature by changing the laws regulating or guiding the markets and courts. Thus, hamstringing the State's ability to have laws counter to this section of the TPP actually saves an entity the time and money which might otherwise have been needed to lobby a State's legislative bodies or develop the legal framework by way of a legal process. It fixes the playing field in favor of non State actors. Currently the most powerful non State actors are for profit corporations and privately held companies. This section of the TPP is not at all neutral, if understood to apply only to States. It would then heavily favor corporations and companies, and it would limit State actors and thus their populations. It would favor entities driven by profit motive or the motives of whomever the individuals are that own said private companies. That. Is. Huge. That is a fundamental shift in how, say someone like an American like me, many people might want to govern the communities they are a part of.

Re: TPP banning requirements to transfer or access to source code of software

#70
The "Party" here refers to a political entity; a Party to the agreement among states.

This is a rule which basically says that governments cannot impose laws that say "thou shalt not sell closed-source mass-market software in this country".

It doesn't translate to "thou shalt sell nothing but closed-source software, and may do so even if it is derived from a copyrighted work whose holders forbid that".

It's a good rule because it reduces government interference in business by a modicum.

Post reply on HN