headers
noriko | 9 May 2011 04:54
Favicon

[Fedora-legal-list] Usage of auto translate

Hi,

FLP are now working the translation for both software, documentation and 
web at Transifex.net. On this interface, 'auto translate' function is 
available. I've been told that the result translation of this function 
comes from Google API.

Doesn't it violate any copy right at all, if entire guide or some part 
of a guide or a full sentence in a guide uses precisely exact copy of 
the auto translated string(s)? Can we safely utilize this function in full?

It is reported from some community members that no clear information can 
be found on Google site, as well no clear information on re-use of the 
result from such API can be found in the copyright law in Japan.

Could you please provide any good advise on this?

[How to reproduce]
1. Log in tx.net -> click any module -> click translate now
2. Move the cursor over between 'Source String' and 'Translation'
3. Click 'auto translate' button
4. The 'Translation' field is automatically filled with translated 
string/sentence.

noriko
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Tom Callaway | 9 May 2011 18:27
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Usage of the Fedora logo on Mono's download info site

On 04/27/2011 04:08 PM, Timur Kristóf wrote:
> So, if we got such a page, clicking on the Fedora logo would allow the 
> user to get information about how to install Mono on Fedora.
> I think this fits into 
>
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Trademark_guidelines#Usage_That_Does_Not_Require_Permission 
> but I'd still like to ask, since I'm not a lawyer and I'm not 100% sure.
> 
> If you are okay with this, we will request such a page from the Mono team.

Yes, this usage is approved.

~tom

==
Fedora Project
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Tom Callaway | 9 May 2011 18:30
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Usage of auto translate

On 05/08/2011 10:54 PM, noriko wrote:
> Doesn't it violate any copy right at all, if entire guide or some part 
> of a guide or a full sentence in a guide uses precisely exact copy of 
> the auto translated string(s)? Can we safely utilize this function in full?

Copyright is less of an issue here, to be honest, than the terms of the
Google Translate API. You can read the Google Translate API Terms of Use
here: http://code.google.com/apis/language/translate/terms.html

The TOU says upon termination, "You shall immediately delete any and all
Google Results". This causes a serious problem for us, as there are many
ways that the TOU could be terminated (by us or Google).

I've CC'd Dimitris Glezos on this, Dimitris, can this Google
Auto-Translate functionality be disabled in the Fedora Transifex instance?

~tom

==
Fedora Project
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Runa Bhattacharjee | 10 May 2011 07:12
Favicon

[Fedora-legal-list] Credit loss in Fedora translation files

Hello,

Translation files submitted via http://fedora.transifex.net removes all
information related to the copyright of the content as well as the names of the
previous translators. As far as I can understand, the translated content for the
Fedora packages and documentation are governed by the rights as indicated for
the main package and/or documentation. I'd like to know:

 <at>  if there could be any implications of legal nature at this point due to the
loss of credits, and

 <at>  if any statements or disclaimers need to be publicly made until the time this
issue is sorted

It is currently being discussed on the Transifex ticketing system at:
http://trac.transifex.org/ticket/675

Thanks
Runa

--

-- 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Runab
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Tom Callaway | 13 May 2011 15:55
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Credit loss in Fedora translation files

On 05/10/2011 01:12 AM, Runa Bhattacharjee wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Translation files submitted via http://fedora.transifex.net removes all
> information related to the copyright of the content as well as the names of the
> previous translators. As far as I can understand, the translated content for the
> Fedora packages and documentation are governed by the rights as indicated for
> the main package and/or documentation. I'd like to know:
> 
>  <at>  if there could be any implications of legal nature at this point due to the
> loss of credits, and

>From a strictly legal standpoint, the answer is no, because the
copyright notice is not required, nor does the absence of the notice
mean that the work is suddenly no longer under copyright (if copyright
applies to the work at all).

With that said, it is however very useful and important for these
credits to be retained, and I have personally reached out to Dimitris
Glezos at Indifex about this, and several other outstanding issues of
concern. Indifex is putting priority on resolving these problems
(including this one and the Google Auto Translate concern), and I am
awaiting a quote so that we can look to enter into a financial
relationship with Indifex to resolve these issues in a timely manner.

~tom

==
Fedora Project
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Sergio Belkin | 13 May 2011 20:32
Picon

[Fedora-legal-list] Question about BSD style license

Hi,

My name is Sergio Belkin I maintain UpTools package. That package has
a License that has 4 clauses and because of that I get confused and
labeld as "BSD with advertising". But a closer read of "BSD with
advertising" at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ#What.27s_the_deal_with_the_BSD_with_advertising_license.3F
makes to understand that is the License that we are using is not "BSD
with advertising". Anyway I wonder if even that has 4 clauses it's a
"BSD" license. I've found that cyrus-sasl has the same license and its
license it was as "BSD" but maintainer changed the tag License, surely
because of a bug I reported.

  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=679416

But again, seeing more deeply it doesn't seem "BSD with advertising".

In short: Please could you tell me if the  following License can be
tagged as "BSD" i.e. BSD License (no advertising)

/* UpTools v8.5
 *
 * Copyright (c) 2005-2011 Fundacion Universidad de Palermo (Argentina).
 * All rights reserved.
 *
 * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
 * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
 * are met:
 *
 * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
Stephen John Smoogen | 13 May 2011 21:06
Picon

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Question about BSD style license

On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 12:32, Sergio Belkin <sebelk@...> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My name is Sergio Belkin I maintain UpTools package. That package has
> a License that has 4 clauses and because of that I get confused and
> labeld as "BSD with advertising". But a closer read of "BSD with
> advertising" at
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ#What.27s_the_deal_with_the_BSD_with_advertising_license.3F
> makes to understand that is the License that we are using is not "BSD
> with advertising". Anyway I wonder if even that has 4 clauses it's a
> "BSD" license. I've found that cyrus-sasl has the same license and its
> license it was as "BSD" but maintainer changed the tag License, surely
> because of a bug I reported.
>
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=679416
>
> But again, seeing more deeply it doesn't seem "BSD with advertising".
>
> In short: Please could you tell me if the  following License can be
> tagged as "BSD" i.e. BSD License (no advertising)
>

The clause that causes GPL problems in the original BSD was the
following license terms:

3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must
display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed
by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors.

That would seem equivalent to
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Richard Fontana | 13 May 2011 21:56
Picon
Favicon

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Question about BSD style license

On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 01:06:50PM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> The clause that causes GPL problems in the original BSD was the
> following license terms:
> 
> 
> 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must
> display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed
> by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors.
> 
> 
> That would seem equivalent to
> 
> >  * 4. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following
> >  *    acknowledgment: 'This product includes software developed by the
> >  *    "Universidad de Palermo, Argentina" (http://www.palermo.edu/).'
> 
> 
> so it would seem that your software is BSD with advertising clause.

I don't agree that it is equivalent to BSD with advertising clause.
The question is whether the acknowledgement clause makes the license
GPL-incompatible in the same way that the advertising clause in the
old BSD license made it GPL-incompatible.

GPLv3 explicitly permits incorporation of code covered by terms the
require "preservation of specified reasonable ... author attributions
in that material". I think that the way this acknowledgement
requirement is worded is consistent with that. There is some
uncertainty over whether that clause in GPLv3 was intended to codify
established practice under GPLv2 or set a new rule, and I know there
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Stephen John Smoogen | 13 May 2011 22:42
Picon

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Question about BSD style license

On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 13:56, Richard Fontana <rfontana@...> wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 01:06:50PM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>> The clause that causes GPL problems in the original BSD was the
>> following license terms:
>>
>>
>> 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must
>> display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed
>> by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors.
>>
>>
>> That would seem equivalent to
>>
>> >  * 4. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following
>> >  *    acknowledgment: 'This product includes software developed by the
>> >  *    "Universidad de Palermo, Argentina" (http://www.palermo.edu/).'
>>
>>
>> so it would seem that your software is BSD with advertising clause.
>
> I don't agree that it is equivalent to BSD with advertising clause.
> The question is whether the acknowledgement clause makes the license
> GPL-incompatible in the same way that the advertising clause in the
> old BSD license made it GPL-incompatible.

Ack.. and I forgot my IANL I am just trying to be helpful clause on my
email. My apologies for making things muddier.

--

-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
threethirty | 13 May 2011 22:56
Picon
Gravatar

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Question about BSD style license

On Fri, 2011-05-13 at 14:42 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: 
> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 13:56, Richard Fontana <rfontana@...> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 01:06:50PM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> >> The clause that causes GPL problems in the original BSD was the
> >> following license terms:
> >>
> >>
> >> 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must
> >> display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed
> >> by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors.
> >>
> >>
> >> That would seem equivalent to
> >>
> >> >  * 4. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following
> >> >  *    acknowledgment: 'This product includes software developed by the
> >> >  *    "Universidad de Palermo, Argentina" (http://www.palermo.edu/).'
> >>
> >>
> >> so it would seem that your software is BSD with advertising clause.
> >
> > I don't agree that it is equivalent to BSD with advertising clause.
> > The question is whether the acknowledgement clause makes the license
> > GPL-incompatible in the same way that the advertising clause in the
> > old BSD license made it GPL-incompatible.
> 
> Ack.. and I forgot my IANL I am just trying to be helpful clause on my
> email. My apologies for making things muddier.
> 
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane