71–80 of 162 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many states in the US force you to test emissions when you register your car.
if(miles_driven < 10,000) { fake emissions; }
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Will this impact governments' efforts to move to open source?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without a court order, at least.
Wasn't there some notion of an international TPP court that could dispute nations' decisions?
The TPP is a government signing away its sovereignty and duty to protect its citizens, for both will take second place to expected future profits.
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.
"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"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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...
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if(miles_driven < 10,000) { fake emissions; }
You often have to renew this every few years, or when you move to a new state. Even my 16-year-old Chevy Caprice with 200k+ miles had to run the CA gauntlet.
(unless (car-radio-playing?) ; probably not the owner driving
(fake-emissions))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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Yeah, but they say that in order to appeal to us voters, who are assumed all to be ignorant jingoist buffoons, ready to support any idiocy so long as it can be imposed on foreigners. It's actually like many other political efforts in this country, in that only the interests of the very richest donors, corporations, and lobbyists are considered.
He really seems to think that the TPP is a key plank in shoring up American power in Asia.
Which, if it were a better treaty, it might.