"No Party may require the transfer of, or access to, source code of software owned by a person of another Party, as a condition of providing services related to such software in its territory."
Is the intent here to avoid government mandates for open source when tendering? Because it doesn't actually say that. Is parties only the government agency? Worded as it is it seems like it might trample over copyright by making the GPL unenoforcable in certain circumstances.
"Parties" in this context is "parties to the treaty". So, weirdly, a country would be able to require source from suppliers internally but not from suppliers from other countries.
It's fairly obvious that this is intended to prevent Microsoft from being excluded from bids.
Is the intent here to avoid government mandates for open source when tendering? Because it doesn't actually say that. Is parties only the government agency? Worded as it is it seems like it might trample over copyright by making the GPL unenoforcable in certain circumstances.