Translation
Threads by month
- ----- 2024 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2023 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2022 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2021 -----
- December
- November
- October
January 2024
- 2 participants
- 3 discussions
17 Jan '24
Dear Dr. Siewicz,
Thank you very much for the kind notes! While it took some time to review and discuss about the materials, we tend to update the conclusion to our questions as follow for reference:
Re Article 3: In light of the GPLv3 First Discussion Draft Rationale and #DRMProhibited, the contributor's legal right to forbid circumvention of technological measures is not enforcable while he disclaimed any intention to limit operation and modification:
Re Article 8: We find it is safe to understood “the same material” as “any materials in which your (the licensee’s) rights have been terminated and not permanently reinstated”, in light of the GPLv3 Final Discussion Draft Rationale:
Re Article 11: In light of the GPLv3 Final Discussion Draft Rationale, the term "contributor version" is introduced to mean "the entire licensed work", rather than the contributor's copyrighted portion to it. Accordingly, the scope of "essential patent claims" of the contributor version covers the entire work, rather than the contributed portion.
Re HOW TO APPLY: We translate “the copyright disclaimer” as covering both scenarios, to ensure full protection for all downstream recipients, in light of #AssignCopyright and the spirit for software freedom:
Moreover, we wonder if it is possible for us to:
1. get permission from FSF to translate the rationale documents (see attached) as well for better and more comprehensive understanding of the GPLv3 license in Chinese community; if so, is there any other documents we should pay attention to? It seems that there is no conspicuous entrance/link for all the rationale documents on the fsf.org, though some of them may be directly located via google search and downloaded from the website.
2. invite legal expert like you to share more instructive notes on GPL licenses and GNU spirits to Chinese developers /counsels /judges, etc. via webinars or in meet-ups /events? We are also happy to make connections and collaborations in regard to promotion of software freedom.
Best regards & looking forward to hearing from you,
Lotus
P.S. Please feel free to disregard our reply dated Jan. 12th, while this email is a comprehensive update.
From: Krzysztof Siewicz via RT
Date: 2023-12-06 01:09
To: vanessa
Subject: [gnu.org #1985209] [inquiry] Questions about several articles of GPLv3
Hello,
Thank you very much for explaining the additional context. I just wanted to check in and ask if you were able to find answers to your questions in the materials I provided last time. I think that especially on https://gplv3.fsf.org/ you can find documents that explain GPLv3 drafting rationales, which may be helpful.
Best regards,
On Mon Nov 13 01:54:41 2023, lotus(a)openatom.org wrote:
> Dear Dr. Siewicz,
> Thanks for your resourceful reply to our inquiry! We are happy to
> offer more details to ease your concerns.
>
> As an IP lawyer practiced for years in China, I fully agree that any
> legal text/license shall always be interpreted and enforced in line
> with its original text, no more and no less. But as you are certainly
> aware, understanding and applying copyleft licenses could be very
> complicate and we already witnessed some unsatisfactory translation in
> local community and litigation proceedings. So the Contransus project
> aims only to provide a publicly-available and credible translation as
> an option, not as a substitution or the only official translation of
> any original license, although we do involve competent bilingual
> experts/professionals to review and revise the translations.
>
> In terms of legal practice, it is long-established in Chinese judicial
> system that any written material in foreign language submitted to
> court shall be accompanied by its Chinese translation; and in case any
> party disputes the accuracy of such translation, a translation agency
> would be appointed, either by the parties jointly or by the court if
> the parties cannot agree upon such agency (see enclosed "FYR",
> containing relevant extracts from legislation with AI translation).
> That is to say, a Chinese translation is always necessary before court
> and any party involved always has a chance to dispute for a more-
> agreeable tranlation in their specific case. A published translation
> could be a good choice/reference anyway.
>
> We do appreiciate and respect FSF's prudence in not approving official
> translation (as stated on GNU website) and we would of cause ensure
> our translation is published with the proper disclaimer message as
> required by FSF. Nevertheless, we hope to be considered as an updated
> version of Simplified Chinese translation, while there are some
> obvious mistakes in the version linked by FSF (e.g. "Foundation" in
> the term FSF is translated into two different words in Chinese, one is
> for "foundation" and the other is for "alliance" ).
>
> We could understand FSF's standing of not giving legal advice, though
> we view the questions we raised as purely literal. And if it is not
> viable for FSF to give any instruction thereof, we would try to seek
> and consult with more experts to ascertain appropriate meaning. If FSF
> has any expert recommandation in this regard, please feel free to let
> us know.
>
> While our foundation is registered as "open source foundation", we
> admire and agree that "freedom" is at core and of important moral
> values. To promote better understanding of the GPL licenses and the
> values of free software, we are more than happy to collect and
> translate more related materials in our Contransus project [one
> planned material is "Copyleft and the GNU GPL A Comprehensive Tutorial
> and Guide (updated 2018)"; and we would add the article
> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html].
> Please let us know if you have any more suggested/recommanded
> materials. We are also open to discussion on potential collaboration
> with FSF, which would be our honor and pleasure.
>
> Warm regards,
> Lotus
>
>
> From: Krzysztof Siewicz via RT
> Date: 2023-11-08 19:03
> To: vanessa
> Subject: [gnu.org #1985209] [inquiry] Questions about several articles
> of GPLv3
> Hello,
>
> On Wed Oct 18 04:59:08 2023, vanessa(a)openatom.org wrote:
> > Dear colleagues of the Free Software Foundation(FSF) :
> >
>
> Thanks for writing in and for your interest in the FSF's GNU General
> Public Licenses.
>
> > Hope this message finds you well! We are members working on a long-
> > term translation project named “Contransus™” initiated and hosted by
> > the OpenAtom Foundation, a Chinese not-for-profit open source
> > foundation established in 2020.
> > The project is aiming at bringing consensus in open source among
> > people speaking different languages via translation, and first of all
> > by offering, for public and for free, credible Chinese translation of
> > popular OSS licenses.
>
> We generally like the idea of bringing consensus about free software
> licensing and we admire your effort to bring more understanding about
> the GNU GPLv3 to non-English speaking people. We will try to help, but
> our resources are limited. We also think there are important caveats
> for such a translation project.
>
> As you are most certainly aware, licenses are legal text applied
> ultimately by courts. Presenting a court with a translation brings yet
> another layer to the already complicated problems of license
> application. Therefore, the FSF has never approved a translation of
> our licenses as official, for reasons stated in:
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/translations.html.en On that page we link
> to some unofficial translations, which include Chinese translations,
> that you might want to check.
>
> Would you be so kind and explain more how do you want to handle legal
> issues resulting from the existence of a published translation of the
> GNU GPLv3? Can you elaborate more on the message you plan to accompany
> your translation with?
>
> > To achieve this, we called for candidate translation scripts from the
> > community and established a Review Panel of Experts with competence
> > (in regard to both languages, law and open source) to work
> > collaboratively in reviewing and revising translation scripts line by
> > line. So far we have reviewed and approved credible translation
> > scripts of the MIT License, the 3-Clause BSD and Apache-2.0, while
> > the
> > GNU GPL licenses (GPLv3, AGPLv3, LGPLv3 and GPLv2) are expected to be
> > done by Q1 of 2024.
> >
> > In revising translation script of the GNU GPLv3 (FYI, see:
> > Translation
> > Draft and Review Minitues[CN]), our panel raised some unsettled
> > questions, for which we are writing to seek from you, the steward of
> > the License, kind opinions, clarification and interpretation:
> >
> >
> >
> > 1. Re Article 3: “When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal
> > power to forbid circumvention of technological measures to the extent
> > such circumvention is effected by exercising rights under this
> > License
> > with respect to the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to
> > limit operation or modification of the work as a means of enforcing,
> > against the work's users, your or third parties' legal rights to
> > forbid circumvention of technological measures.”
> > Question: There are two understandings in regard to the relation
> > between “limit (users’) operation or modification of the work” and
> > “enforcing ... legal right to forbid circumvention”:
> > 1) “limit (users’) operation or modification of the work” is a means
> > for “enforcing ... legal right to forbid circumvention”; or
> > 2) “enforcing ... legal right to forbid circumvention” should be a
> > means to “limit (users’) operation or modification of the work”.
> > Please advise which one is more accurate.
> >
> > 2. Re Article 8: "Termination of your rights under this section does
> > not terminate the licenses of parties who have received copies or
> > rights from you under this License. If your rights have been
> > terminated and not permanently reinstated, you do not qualify to
> > receive new licenses for the same material under section 10.”
> > Question: The phrase “same material” herein has no specific
> > definition elsewhere in the license. We wonder if it is correct to
> > translate it, in light of the context, as a reference to “any
> > materials” in which “your rights have been terminated and not
> > permanently reinstated”?
> > We believe that this part is to make clear that an disqualified
> > licensee could not get his license renewed simply by receiving
> > another
> > version of the program.
> >
> > 3. Re Article 11:
> > A “contributor” is a copyright holder who authorizes use under this
> > License of the Program or a work on which the Program is based. The
> > work thus licensed is called the contributor's “contributor version”.
> > A contributor's “essential patent claims” are all patent claims owned
> > or controlled by the contributor, whether already acquired or
> > hereafter acquired, that would be infringed by some manner, permitted
> > by this License, of making, using, or selling its contributor
> > version,
> > but do not include claims that would be infringed only as a
> > consequence of further modification of the contributor version. For
> > purposes of this definition, “control” includes the right to grant
> > patent sublicenses in a manner consistent with the requirements of
> > this License.
> > Understandings:
> > While the “contributor” refers to copyright holder of the Program or
> > a
> > copyrightable upstream portion of the Program (a work on which the
> > Program is based), there are two understandings:
> > 1. the “contributor version” should refer to the contribution portion
> > made by the contributor (in case of the first contributor, his
> > contribution version could be the Program). As shown in the following
> > graph:
> > * “contribution version by B = the Program - the contribution version
> > by A”
> > * “contribution version by C = the Covered Work - the Program (i.e.
> > the contribution version by A and B)” .
> > 2. the “contributor version” should refer to the whole
> > Program/covered
> > work incoporating the contributor’s contribution. As shown in the
> > following graph:
> > * “contribution version by B = the Program”
> > * “contribution version by C = the Covered Work”
> >
> > Questions:
> > Further to the first understanding: whether the “essential patent
> > claims” cover claims that would be infringed by the combination of
> > contributor version and the rest parts contributed by others? For
> > example, if a patent claim is infringed by the combination (rather
> > than individually) of A’s contribution and B’s contribution, would it
> > be granted by A if it owned/controlled by A? Or by B if it is
> > owned/controlled by B? Or by neither in any case?
> > Further to the second understanding: should a contributor grant his
> > patent in regard to contribution made by his upstream developer? For
> > example, if B holds a patent claim which is infringed only by
> > contribution made by A, does B grant such claim to C under this
> > License?
> >
> > 4. Re HOW TO APPLY THESE TERMS TO YOUR NEW PROGRAMS: “You should also
> > get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or school, if any, to
> > sign a “copyright disclaimer” for the program, if necessary.”
> > Question: Two types of “copyright disclaimer” could be relevant: 1)
> > the employer disclaims that it has no copyright/interest in the
> > contribution while such contribution is purely personally made by the
> > employee, and 2) the employer disclaims its copyright in the
> > contribution while the contribution may belong to “work made for
> > hire”
> > and copyrighted by the employer in default. We wonder if the phrase
> > “copyright disclaimer” should cover type 1) , 2) or both?
> >
> The FSF does not give legal advice. We believe that the best way to
> answer your questions would be to ask a lawyer active in a
> jurisdiction for which you want to have a resolution of those issues.
> From our side, we can share educational materials covering our
> intention, rationale, and interpretation of the licenses, such as
> https://gplv3.fsf.org/ or https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html.en
>
> Additionally, after reading your e-mail and reviewing your website
> (English version), we would like to kindly draw your attention to the
> fact that although the terms "open source" and "free software" denote
> almost the same set of computer programs, they mean different things.
> We discourage the use of the term "open source" for reasons stated,
> for example, in: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-
> the-point.en.html
>
> We would like ask you to be mindful of the moral message you
> communicate in your publications, including the translations that you
> work on, apart from considering all legal implications that follow
> from publishing a translation of licenses.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > We deeply appreciate your time and help! Please feel free to contact
> > us if you have any comments or suggestions.
> >
> >
> > Sincerely yours,
> >
> >
> > Lotus Wang
> > Vanessa Guo
> > Contransus™ Project
> > OPENATOM FOUNDATION
>
>
> --
> Best,
> Krzysztof Siewicz | Licensing and Compliance Manager, Free Software
> Foundation
> GPG Key: 6DC9 E663 36DB 9588 81AB 7E43 2671 24EF FC9C D84E
> https://fsf.org
>
> Submit your session for LibrePlanet 2024: https://u.fsf.org/40g
>
> US government employee? Use CFC charity code 63210 to support us
> through
> the Combined Federal Campaign. https://cfcgiving.opm.gov/
>
>
--
Best,
Krzysztof Siewicz | Licensing and Compliance Manager, Free Software Foundation
GPG Key: 6DC9 E663 36DB 9588 81AB 7E43 2671 24EF FC9C D84E
https://fsf.org
Submit your session for LibrePlanet 2024: https://u.fsf.org/40g
US government employee? Use CFC charity code 63210 to support us through
the Combined Federal Campaign. https://cfcgiving.opm.gov/
1
0
各位源译识 | 许可证翻译板块的 译者 ，新年好！
非常感谢各位2023年度的贡献！2023年，我们累计收到 50+ 许可证译文投稿，并对于关注度最高的主流许可证进行了译文审校。为此，我们组织了译文评审团老师进行了 10次 评审会并审定了 6份 译本，后三份译本拟于本周在开放原子官微进行宣传公示：
Apache License Version 2.0
MIT License
3-clause BSD License
GNU GPL v3
GNU AGPL v3
GNU LGPL v3
此外，我们再次向您同步，源译识公益翻译项目中的 许可证翻译板块 现已搬迁至 AtomGit平台，原仓库已处于只读状态。新仓库中保留了Gitee平台所有的提交记录，并将持续维护与迭代，我们欢迎您继续关注本翻译项目并参与贡献！让我们一起在共译中凝聚对开源的共识~
新仓库地址：https://atomgit.com/translation/license-translation
原仓库地址：https://gitee.com/OpenAtomFoundation/legal-license-translation
如您有任何建议或疑问，欢迎随时联系我们！祝好！
郭雪雯 Vanessa
源译识项目组
法务与知识产权部 | 开放原子开源基金会
地址：北京经济技术开发区科谷一街8号院8号楼22层2201
This email message (with attachment, if any) is from OpenAtom Foundation. It may contain proprietary and confidential information meant solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Please keep confidential and do not disclose any or all information contained herein to any third party without prior written permission of the sender. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this original message and all attachments. Thank you.
发件人： 郭雪雯
发送时间： 2023-11-24 17:36
收件人： translation
主题： 源译识 | 仓库搬迁预告
各位评审专家及成员，大家好
由于开放原子开源基金会已建立了自有的代码托管平台 AtomGit.com, 根据内部调整，源译识许可证翻译仓库拟于明年1月1日从 Gitee 平台正式搬迁到 AtomGit.com 平台上，暂设地址为：https://atomgit.com/translation/license-translation 。
经研发小伙伴协助，所有此前的commit都可以保留。但遗憾的是，issue信息、评论信息、watch/star/fork信息搬不过去，因此届时，旧仓库将继续公开可见，并变为“仅可读状态”。也请各位朋友们移步新的许可证翻译仓库。
非常感谢您的关注！如您有任何问题或建议，请您随时联系我们！
祝好！
郭雪雯 Vanessa
源译识项目组 | 开放原子开源基金会
地址：北京经济技术开发区科谷一街8号院8号楼22层2201
This email message (with attachment, if any) is from OpenAtom Foundation. It may contain proprietary and confidential information meant solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Please keep confidential and do not disclose any or all information contained herein to any third party without prior written permission of the sender. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this original message and all attachments. Thank you.
1
0
各位评审老师，大家好
基于本周内各位老师的集中讨论，也经过与FSF沟通，现向各位同步 GPLv3、AGPLv3、LGPLv3审定稿及各自的会议纪要。 为了推进对许可证译本的开放讨论，如各位老师在本周内无异议，我们将拟在本周 周四 或 周五 在基金会微信公众号统一对译文进行公示。如您有任何问题，欢迎随时反馈。
GPLv3
译文评审&审定稿 Review&Final texts/EN-CN GPL-3.0 FINAL TEXT 20230806.md · master · license-translation · AtomGit
译文评审&审定稿 Review&Final texts/20230806 - 第三至七次译文评审会 draft.md · master · license-translation · AtomGit
AGPLv3
译文评审&审定稿 Review&Final texts/EN-CN AGPL-3.0-or-later FINAL TEXT 20231021.md · master · license-translation · AtomGit
译文评审&审定稿 Review&Final texts/20231021 - 第八次译文评审会纪要.md · master · license-translation · AtomGit
LGPLv3
译文评审&审定稿 Review&Final texts/EN-CN LGPL-3.0 FINAL TEXT 20231203.md · master · license-translation · AtomGit
译文评审&审定稿 Review&Final texts/20231204 - 第九至十次译文评审会纪要.md · master · license-translation · AtomGit
许可证板块术语表
GLOSSARY.md · master · license-translation · AtomGit
再次感谢各位老师对源译识许可证翻译板块的大力贡献！;)
祝好！
郭雪雯 Vanessa
法务与知识产权部 | 开放原子开源基金会
地址：北京经济技术开发区科谷一街8号院8号楼22层2201
This email message (with attachment, if any) is from OpenAtom Foundation. It may contain proprietary and confidential information meant solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Please keep confidential and do not disclose any or all information contained herein to any third party without prior written permission of the sender. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this original message and all attachments. Thank you.
------------------ Original ------------------
From: "王荷舒"<lotus(a)openatom.org>;
Date: Fri, Jan 12, 2024 08:14 PM
To: "licensing"<licensing(a)fsf.org>;
Cc: "郭雪雯"<vanessa(a)openatom.org>;
Subject: Re: [gnu.org #1985209] [inquiry] Questions about several articles of GPLv3
Dear Dr. Siewicz,
Thank you very much for the kind notes! While it took some time to review and discuss about the materials, we tend to conclude our questions as follow for reference:
Re Article 3: If “intention (to limit operation or modification of the work)” is a required element in excising the legal right (to forbid circumvention of technological measures), it is logical to regard it as a means of enforcing such rights.
Re Article 8: We find it is safe to understood “the same material” as “any materials in which your (the licensee’s) rights have been terminated and not permanently reinstated”.
Re Article 11: In light of #LGPLv3ContributorVesion, we interpret the “contributor version” as referring only to the contribution made by the contributor himself; thus only “essential patent claims” in the part contributed by the contributor is granted.
Re HOW TO APPLY: In light of #AssignCopyright and the spirit for software freedom, we translate “the copyright disclaimer” as covering both scenarios, to ensure full protection for all downstream recipients.
Moreover, we wonder if it is possible to invite legal expert like you to share more instructive notes on GPL licenses and GNU spirits to Chinese developers /counsels /judges, etc. via webinars or in meet-ups /events? We are happy to make connections and collaborations in regard to promotion of software freedom.
Best regards & looking forward to hearing from you,
Lotus
lotus(a)openatom.org
From: Krzysztof Siewicz via RT
Date: 2023-12-06 01:09
To: vanessa
Subject: [gnu.org #1985209] [inquiry] Questions about several articles of GPLv3
Hello,
Thank you very much for explaining the additional context. I just wanted to check in and ask if you were able to find answers to your questions in the materials I provided last time. I think that especially on https://gplv3.fsf.org/ you can find documents that explain GPLv3 drafting rationales, which may be helpful.
Best regards,
On Mon Nov 13 01:54:41 2023, lotus(a)openatom.org wrote:
> Dear Dr. Siewicz,
> Thanks for your resourceful reply to our inquiry! We are happy to
> offer more details to ease your concerns.
>
> As an IP lawyer practiced for years in China, I fully agree that any
> legal text/license shall always be interpreted and enforced in line
> with its original text, no more and no less. But as you are certainly
> aware, understanding and applying copyleft licenses could be very
> complicate and we already witnessed some unsatisfactory translation in
> local community and litigation proceedings. So the Contransus project
> aims only to provide a publicly-available and credible translation as
> an option, not as a substitution or the only official translation of
> any original license, although we do involve competent bilingual
> experts/professionals to review and revise the translations.
>
> In terms of legal practice, it is long-established in Chinese judicial
> system that any written material in foreign language submitted to
> court shall be accompanied by its Chinese translation; and in case any
> party disputes the accuracy of such translation, a translation agency
> would be appointed, either by the parties jointly or by the court if
> the parties cannot agree upon such agency (see enclosed "FYR",
> containing relevant extracts from legislation with AI translation).
> That is to say, a Chinese translation is always necessary before court
> and any party involved always has a chance to dispute for a more-
> agreeable tranlation in their specific case. A published translation
> could be a good choice/reference anyway.
>
> We do appreiciate and respect FSF's prudence in not approving official
> translation (as stated on GNU website) and we would of cause ensure
> our translation is published with the proper disclaimer message as
> required by FSF. Nevertheless, we hope to be considered as an updated
> version of Simplified Chinese translation, while there are some
> obvious mistakes in the version linked by FSF (e.g. "Foundation" in
> the term FSF is translated into two different words in Chinese, one is
> for "foundation" and the other is for "alliance" ).
>
> We could understand FSF's standing of not giving legal advice, though
> we view the questions we raised as purely literal. And if it is not
> viable for FSF to give any instruction thereof, we would try to seek
> and consult with more experts to ascertain appropriate meaning. If FSF
> has any expert recommandation in this regard, please feel free to let
> us know.
>
> While our foundation is registered as "open source foundation", we
> admire and agree that "freedom" is at core and of important moral
> values. To promote better understanding of the GPL licenses and the
> values of free software, we are more than happy to collect and
> translate more related materials in our Contransus project [one
> planned material is "Copyleft and the GNU GPL A Comprehensive Tutorial
> and Guide (updated 2018)"; and we would add the article
> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html].
> Please let us know if you have any more suggested/recommanded
> materials. We are also open to discussion on potential collaboration
> with FSF, which would be our honor and pleasure.
>
> Warm regards,
> Lotus
>
>
> From: Krzysztof Siewicz via RT
> Date: 2023-11-08 19:03
> To: vanessa
> Subject: [gnu.org #1985209] [inquiry] Questions about several articles
> of GPLv3
> Hello,
>
> On Wed Oct 18 04:59:08 2023, vanessa(a)openatom.org wrote:
> > Dear colleagues of the Free Software Foundation(FSF) :
> >
>
> Thanks for writing in and for your interest in the FSF's GNU General
> Public Licenses.
>
> > Hope this message finds you well! We are members working on a long-
> > term translation project named “Contransus™” initiated and hosted by
> > the OpenAtom Foundation, a Chinese not-for-profit open source
> > foundation established in 2020.
> > The project is aiming at bringing consensus in open source among
> > people speaking different languages via translation, and first of all
> > by offering, for public and for free, credible Chinese translation of
> > popular OSS licenses.
>
> We generally like the idea of bringing consensus about free software
> licensing and we admire your effort to bring more understanding about
> the GNU GPLv3 to non-English speaking people. We will try to help, but
> our resources are limited. We also think there are important caveats
> for such a translation project.
>
> As you are most certainly aware, licenses are legal text applied
> ultimately by courts. Presenting a court with a translation brings yet
> another layer to the already complicated problems of license
> application. Therefore, the FSF has never approved a translation of
> our licenses as official, for reasons stated in:
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/translations.html.en On that page we link
> to some unofficial translations, which include Chinese translations,
> that you might want to check.
>
> Would you be so kind and explain more how do you want to handle legal
> issues resulting from the existence of a published translation of the
> GNU GPLv3? Can you elaborate more on the message you plan to accompany
> your translation with?
>
> > To achieve this, we called for candidate translation scripts from the
> > community and established a Review Panel of Experts with competence
> > (in regard to both languages, law and open source) to work
> > collaboratively in reviewing and revising translation scripts line by
> > line. So far we have reviewed and approved credible translation
> > scripts of the MIT License, the 3-Clause BSD and Apache-2.0, while
> > the
> > GNU GPL licenses (GPLv3, AGPLv3, LGPLv3 and GPLv2) are expected to be
> > done by Q1 of 2024.
> >
> > In revising translation script of the GNU GPLv3 (FYI, see:
> > Translation
> > Draft and Review Minitues[CN]), our panel raised some unsettled
> > questions, for which we are writing to seek from you, the steward of
> > the License, kind opinions, clarification and interpretation:
> >
> >
> >
> > 1. Re Article 3: “When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal
> > power to forbid circumvention of technological measures to the extent
> > such circumvention is effected by exercising rights under this
> > License
> > with respect to the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to
> > limit operation or modification of the work as a means of enforcing,
> > against the work's users, your or third parties' legal rights to
> > forbid circumvention of technological measures.”
> > Question: There are two understandings in regard to the relation
> > between “limit (users’) operation or modification of the work” and
> > “enforcing ... legal right to forbid circumvention”:
> > 1) “limit (users’) operation or modification of the work” is a means
> > for “enforcing ... legal right to forbid circumvention”; or
> > 2) “enforcing ... legal right to forbid circumvention” should be a
> > means to “limit (users’) operation or modification of the work”.
> > Please advise which one is more accurate.
> >
> > 2. Re Article 8: "Termination of your rights under this section does
> > not terminate the licenses of parties who have received copies or
> > rights from you under this License. If your rights have been
> > terminated and not permanently reinstated, you do not qualify to
> > receive new licenses for the same material under section 10.”
> > Question: The phrase “same material” herein has no specific
> > definition elsewhere in the license. We wonder if it is correct to
> > translate it, in light of the context, as a reference to “any
> > materials” in which “your rights have been terminated and not
> > permanently reinstated”?
> > We believe that this part is to make clear that an disqualified
> > licensee could not get his license renewed simply by receiving
> > another
> > version of the program.
> >
> > 3. Re Article 11:
> > A “contributor” is a copyright holder who authorizes use under this
> > License of the Program or a work on which the Program is based. The
> > work thus licensed is called the contributor's “contributor version”.
> > A contributor's “essential patent claims” are all patent claims owned
> > or controlled by the contributor, whether already acquired or
> > hereafter acquired, that would be infringed by some manner, permitted
> > by this License, of making, using, or selling its contributor
> > version,
> > but do not include claims that would be infringed only as a
> > consequence of further modification of the contributor version. For
> > purposes of this definition, “control” includes the right to grant
> > patent sublicenses in a manner consistent with the requirements of
> > this License.
> > Understandings:
> > While the “contributor” refers to copyright holder of the Program or
> > a
> > copyrightable upstream portion of the Program (a work on which the
> > Program is based), there are two understandings:
> > 1. the “contributor version” should refer to the contribution portion
> > made by the contributor (in case of the first contributor, his
> > contribution version could be the Program). As shown in the following
> > graph:
> > * “contribution version by B = the Program - the contribution version
> > by A”
> > * “contribution version by C = the Covered Work - the Program (i.e.
> > the contribution version by A and B)” .
> > 2. the “contributor version” should refer to the whole
> > Program/covered
> > work incoporating the contributor’s contribution. As shown in the
> > following graph:
> > * “contribution version by B = the Program”
> > * “contribution version by C = the Covered Work”
> >
> > Questions:
> > Further to the first understanding: whether the “essential patent
> > claims” cover claims that would be infringed by the combination of
> > contributor version and the rest parts contributed by others? For
> > example, if a patent claim is infringed by the combination (rather
> > than individually) of A’s contribution and B’s contribution, would it
> > be granted by A if it owned/controlled by A? Or by B if it is
> > owned/controlled by B? Or by neither in any case?
> > Further to the second understanding: should a contributor grant his
> > patent in regard to contribution made by his upstream developer? For
> > example, if B holds a patent claim which is infringed only by
> > contribution made by A, does B grant such claim to C under this
> > License?
> >
> > 4. Re HOW TO APPLY THESE TERMS TO YOUR NEW PROGRAMS: “You should also
> > get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or school, if any, to
> > sign a “copyright disclaimer” for the program, if necessary.”
> > Question: Two types of “copyright disclaimer” could be relevant: 1)
> > the employer disclaims that it has no copyright/interest in the
> > contribution while such contribution is purely personally made by the
> > employee, and 2) the employer disclaims its copyright in the
> > contribution while the contribution may belong to “work made for
> > hire”
> > and copyrighted by the employer in default. We wonder if the phrase
> > “copyright disclaimer” should cover type 1) , 2) or both?
> >
> The FSF does not give legal advice. We believe that the best way to
> answer your questions would be to ask a lawyer active in a
> jurisdiction for which you want to have a resolution of those issues.
> From our side, we can share educational materials covering our
> intention, rationale, and interpretation of the licenses, such as
> https://gplv3.fsf.org/ or https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html.en
>
> Additionally, after reading your e-mail and reviewing your website
> (English version), we would like to kindly draw your attention to the
> fact that although the terms "open source" and "free software" denote
> almost the same set of computer programs, they mean different things.
> We discourage the use of the term "open source" for reasons stated,
> for example, in: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-
> the-point.en.html
>
> We would like ask you to be mindful of the moral message you
> communicate in your publications, including the translations that you
> work on, apart from considering all legal implications that follow
> from publishing a translation of licenses.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > We deeply appreciate your time and help! Please feel free to contact
> > us if you have any comments or suggestions.
> >
> >
> > Sincerely yours,
> >
> >
> > Lotus Wang
> > Vanessa Guo
> > Contransus™ Project
> > OPENATOM FOUNDATION
>
>
> --
> Best,
> Krzysztof Siewicz | Licensing and Compliance Manager, Free Software
> Foundation
> GPG Key: 6DC9 E663 36DB 9588 81AB 7E43 2671 24EF FC9C D84E
> https://fsf.org
>
> Submit your session for LibrePlanet 2024: https://u.fsf.org/40g
>
> US government employee? Use CFC charity code 63210 to support us
> through
> the Combined Federal Campaign. https://cfcgiving.opm.gov/
>
>
--
Best,
Krzysztof Siewicz | Licensing and Compliance Manager, Free Software Foundation
GPG Key: 6DC9 E663 36DB 9588 81AB 7E43 2671 24EF FC9C D84E
https://fsf.org
Submit your session for LibrePlanet 2024: https://u.fsf.org/40g
US government employee? Use CFC charity code 63210 to support us through
the Combined Federal Campaign. https://cfcgiving.opm.gov/
1
0