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>openatom.org>;
Date: Fri, Jan 12, 2024 08:14 PM
To: "licensing"<licensing(a)fsf.org>sing@fsf.org>;
Cc: "郭雪雯"<vanessa(a)openatom.org>openatom.org>;
Subject: Re: [
#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: [
#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
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
US government employee? Use CFC charity code 63210 to support us through
the Combined Federal Campaign.