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@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/
