I hope you are right in your interpretation. Nobody can get everything right all the time. Rod On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 at 16:43, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo(a)geek-central.gen.nz> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 16:25:26 +1200, Roderick Aldridge wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 at 15:14, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo(a)geek-central.gen.nz> wrote:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180615/09090440050/open-source-industry-...
This looks to me like the sort of apparently insignificant measure the intellectual property brigade have sneaked into an obscure place hoping nobody would notice until it is too late.
To be fair, a commenter has mentioned that, elsewhere in the document, “Party” is defined as a signatory country. So this is not requiring that everybody drop such conditions from their software licences.
Also, thinking a bit more about it:
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 specifically talks about requiring source code of “software owned by a person of another Party”, i.e. not the side receiving or using the software.
So all it’s doing is prohibiting the overriding of the licensing terms on which the software is being offered. Which actually seems quite legitimate.
Maybe Glyn Moody has jumped the gun on this one, for a change. As have I, for my faith in him... _______________________________________________ wlug mailing list | wlug(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Unsubscribe: https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/wlug