Re: Using freetranslation.mobi to translate

[Petter Reinholdtsen]

[Guilherme de Siqueira Pastore]
 Regarding the license requirements of Google Translator, I would say
 they already have the rights to use, host, store, reproduce, modif
 etc. under the GPL-2, so that should not be a problem. Despite the
 wording of the agreement, your obligation of ensuring Google is free
 to do what it wants to with that piece of text is duly fulfilled.

Ah, interesting point.

So even if one accepted the terms of Google Translator, which I do
not, and used it directly instead of URL: http://freetranslation.mobi/ ,

this part would then not be a licensing problem.  But it seem
irrelevant for this discussion, as I was using
URL: http://freetranslation.mobi/  and not Google Translator.

 As for the resulting translations, it is undisputed that they
 constitute the product of a computer algorithm, generated in a
 completely automated manner.

Actually, it depend on the method used.  If the translations are not
synthesised but instead copied from a translation database of
equivalent string pairs, there could be a human translator behind both
the strings in the database and thus also the resulting translation.
But most likely there are several matching translations for a given
string, so there is also some algorithmic logic involved in picking
the right one and your argument might still hold.  The paper available
from URL: http://cjlt.dal.ca/vol6_no3/gow.pdf  have more on this
issue.

 That is not, for the purposes of intellectual property law, an
 intellectual work or human creation, thus falling outside of the
 scope of copyright protection. At least this is my understanding of
 the Berne Convention (1971), the TRIPS Agreement and the national
 laws of the jurisdiction I am licensed to practice law in.

You might be right, or there might be more complex legal arguments
involved in determining who got the copyright of a machine translated
string.

But I believe determining who got the copyright is irrelevant in this
case, as long as the license of the original text is not violated and
the resulting text will thus also be GPL licensed.  The alternative is
to claim that the translation service is violating the GPL, which to
me seem a bit strange as I fail to understand how it could do it by
sharing the resulting string with me.

 Everyone is welcome to disagree, though. This is just my two cents.

Thank you very much for your input.

I do hope Holger and David can explain a bit more why they believe
there is a licensing problem here, as I fail to see the problem they
try to point out.
-- 
Happy hacking
Petter Reinholdtsen


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2flobrmc2sz@login2.uio.no

Re: Using freetranslation.mobi to translate

[Charles Plessy]

Le Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 12:31:24AM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen a écrit :
 
 
 So even if one accepted the terms of Google Translator, which I do
 not, and used it directly instead of URL: http://freetranslation.mobi/ ,
 this part would then not be a licensing problem.  But it seem
 irrelevant for this discussion, as I was using
 URL: http://freetranslation.mobi/  and not Google Translator.

Dear Petter,

are you sure if http://freetranslation.mobi/ actually respects Google's terms
of use ?  Being closed source, it is not possible for instance to see if it
accesses the translations through Google's API or if it acts more like a rogue
proxy.  If you want to use freetranslation.mobi regularly, I would recommend to
ask Google for a clarification.

In any case, that you respect freetranslation.mobi's terms of use does not make
you free from Google's terms.  Imagine for instance if one would set up a
website called gpl2bsd.org, which would substitute GPL notices by BSD notices:
users obtaining the relicensed software would not be allowed to keep on
following the BSD license after they are notified that they downloaded an
unauthorized copy.

According to http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/ :

  When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google
  (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce,
  modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations,
  adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with 
our
  Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and
  distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the
  limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to
  develop new ones. This license continues even if you stop using our Services
  (for example, for a business listing you have added to Google Maps). Some
  Services may offer you ways to access and remove content that has been 
provided
  to that Service. Also, in some of our Services, there are terms or settings
  that narrow the scope of our use of the content submitted in those Services.
  Make sure you have the necessary rights to grant us this license for any
  content that you submit to our Services. 

In the case Google would publish a derivative of a GPLed text uploaded for
translation, even in the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and
improving [their] Service, the GPL would be violated if the derivative would
not mention its original license in the published material.  I admit that this
is a far-fetched scenario, but that may need to be considered before pasting
GPLed text in Google Translate.

For the resulting translations, however, I think that I agree that there is no
copyright claimed on them, and that they can be freely added to the original
project.

Have a nice day,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120324032603.gb16...@falafel.plessy.net