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/