Copyleft terms may become unenforceable in 11 countries due to the CPTPP
The relevant text from the linked pdf[1]:<p><i>&gt;Article 14.17: Source Code<p>&gt;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.<p>&gt;2. For the purposes of this Article, software subject to paragraph 1 is limited
to mass-market software or products containing such software and does not
include software used for critical infrastructure.<p>&gt;3. Nothing in this Article shall preclude:
(a) the inclusion or implementation of terms and conditions related to
the provision of source code in commercially negotiated contracts;</i><p>To point (1), the text seems like something Steve Ballmer would write to because &quot;GPL is a cancer&quot;.<p>To point (2), I wonder if &quot;GNU gcc&quot; is considered &quot;mass-market&quot; or &quot;infrastructure&quot;.<p>To point (3), I assume that proprietary software users will want the most narrow definition of <i>&quot;commercially negotiated contracts&quot;</i>.  This means reading the LICENSE.TXT that states &quot;copyleft&quot; and downloading from github is definitely not a &quot;contract&quot;.   Therefore, copyleft would be null &amp; void.<p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;dfat.gov.au&#x2F;trade&#x2F;agreements&#x2F;not-yet-in-force&#x2F;tpp-11&#x2F;official-documents&#x2F;Documents&#x2F;14-electronic-commerce.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;dfat.gov.au&#x2F;trade&#x2F;agreements&#x2F;not-yet-in-force&#x2F;tpp-11&#x2F;...</a>