Hello,

On Wed Oct 18 04:59:08 2023, vanessa@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/