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@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@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/