I'm going a bit of a limb here in applying SCOTUS principles to how to read law, as we're not talking about US jurisdiction, but since Australia is also a common law country, I'd assume that the principles are basically the same. One basic principle of determining different interpretations is that you have to ask "is there a clearer way to write this interpretation?" If the intent of the treaty were to make copyleft unenforceable, the text included would be along the lines of "No party shall permit a person to require the disclosure of source code." Indeed, if you read some of the other articles in that chapter, there is actually text that says "No party shall require a covered person..." This does signal that there is intent that the text of Article 14.17 apply onto the government and not to the general public within a country.

I think the consensus is that is not the intent. The OSIA and Linux Journal concern is the unintended alternative interpretation of the text.

I don't know the jurisprudence of Australian law to understand how Australian courts would interpret the text, but I would honestly be surprised if OSIA's purported interpretation were accepted.

It's the same definition. "A person of another Party" is "a person from another country."

ie. "Boeing" is the person and "USA" is the Party.

That just means "foreigner".

> Although "party" is literally defined as "country", it applies to the businesses in within a country.

What "it"? The NAFTA could certainly have requirements from signatory states to implement certain laws, and when such laws are implemented, of course they would apply to Boeing or any other US company. But I don't think NAFTA itself would apply directly.