Re: Using freetranslation.mobi to translate .po files
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012, at 01:36 PM, Ben Finney wrote: I think this is a false assumption, the service itself required creativity to implement, and the specific choice of word associations in specific contexts is not algorithmic nor factual, but individual calls by translation submitters who have granted the translation service license to use their work. By the same argument, the GCC copyright holders can claim to hold copyright in every program compiled using GCC, and the copyright holders in PHP can claim copyright in every web page that program renders. I think that's exactly as unsound as the argument you present. I don't think your comparison is sound. A compiler is going from one synthetic anguage with well defined semantics to another. A human language translation isn't simmilar at all. If you insist on assuming that the output is indeed the result of a mechanical compilation and if you presume the final result is GPLv2+, then the process must comply with Clause #6 of the GPLv3. This requires the corresponding *source code* needed to _generate_ the work from its source code be compatibly licensed Hence, if you want to compare this process to the GCC case... the translator itself must be released under the GPLv3. I think presuming the translation output isn't copyrighted is wishful thinking, valuing *your* copyrights over the copyrights of others. For example, if the chunks arn't copyrightable, and assembling chunks is just an automated process... why is the source document copyrightable, it's just a series of uncopyrighted facts (e.g. words). If the sequence matters, then you're not just sending chunks to the service, you're sending the entire document. I'm not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice. Best, Clark -- 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/1332769110.8480.140661054187485.22ed5...@webmail.messagingengine.com
Re: Using freetranslation.mobi to translate .po files
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: If I ask a random person on the street to translate a GPLed text fragment, and the person give me a translated text fragment back, will the resulting text fragment still be GPLed? Assuming the text fragment was copyrightable in the first place, I believe it will be, as otherwise the translator would be said to violate the GPL and I fail to see what action involved could possibly violate the GPL. The translator would be violating the GPL, but since this is fair use, violating the GPL this way would be legal. -- 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/alpine.lrh.2.00.1203260827350.3...@oxygen.rahul.net
Re: Using freetranslation.mobi to translate .po files
[Ken Arromdee] The translator would be violating the GPL, but since this is fair use, violating the GPL this way would be legal. What is the translator doing in the example we are discussing that is violating the GPL? Please explain more, as I failed to understand what you mean from your terse comment. Which action is violating the GPL? -- 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/20120326154325.gb7...@login1.uio.no
Re: Using freetranslation.mobi to translate .po files
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 09:38:30AM -0400, Clark C. Evans wrote: On Sun, Mar 25, 2012, at 01:36 PM, Ben Finney wrote: I think this is a false assumption, the service itself required creativity to implement, and the specific choice of word associations in specific contexts is not algorithmic nor factual, but individual calls by translation submitters who have granted the translation service license to use their work. By the same argument, the GCC copyright holders can claim to hold copyright in every program compiled using GCC, and the copyright holders in PHP can claim copyright in every web page that program renders. I think that's exactly as unsound as the argument you present. I don't think your comparison is sound. A compiler is going from one synthetic anguage with well defined semantics to another. A human language translation isn't simmilar at all. If you insist on assuming that the output is indeed the result of a mechanical compilation and if you presume the final result is GPLv2+, then the process must comply with Clause #6 of the GPLv3. This requires the corresponding *source code* needed to _generate_ the work from its source code be compatibly licensed Hence, if you want to compare this process to the GCC case... the translator itself must be released under the GPLv3. Not in the least. Releasing something under GPLv2+ means the recipient gets to *choose* which version of the GPL they're complying with, including when they create derivative works. In the GPLv3 only case, I think there's also still room to maneuver; even though the translation is initially a mechanical translation, once done, doesn't this translation then become a new part of the *source*, subject to hand editing and revision? If so, I don't think it falls under section 6. I think presuming the translation output isn't copyrighted is wishful thinking, valuing *your* copyrights over the copyrights of others. Copyright is defined as attaching to creative expressions. If there's nothing creative in the way the translation is *expressed*, it's not copyrightable; nor is there recognition under copyright law that the output of a machine is covered by any copyright other than that of the input. (BTW, if you're claiming that there's creativity in the machine translation itself and that copyright attaches, that's pretty much mutually exclusive with claiming that it's object code under GPLv3 section 6.) For example, if the chunks arn't copyrightable, and assembling chunks is just an automated process... why is the source document copyrightable, it's just a series of uncopyrighted facts (e.g. words). If the sequence matters, then you're not just sending chunks to the service, you're sending the entire document. US copyright law recognizes that there may be creative expression in the selection and organization of factual information. This is why a phonebook (or a timezone database!), which has a trivial structure of organization and is intended to be exhaustive, is not recognized as having a copyright, but an anthology of selected short stories has an editor's copyright in addition to the copyrights of the individual authors. So when you choose what bits to feed into the machine and how to assemble the output, the new copyright that attaches is yours, assuming that the choosing and assembling is non-trivially creative; the machine doesn't hold any copyright. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Using freetranslation.mobi to translate .po files
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012, at 09:53 AM, Steve Langasek wrote: Not in the least. Releasing something under GPLv2+ means the recipient gets to *choose* which version of the GPL they're complying with, including when they create derivative works. I've not studied GPLv2 at all, I was using GPLv3 since I'm at least a bit familar with it. That said, I don't think you could take the output of the translation and pretend that it is licensed via the GPLv3. I presume GPLv2 is similar. In the GPLv3 only case, I think there's also still room to maneuver; even though the translation is initially a mechanical translation, once done, doesn't this translation then become a new part of the *source*, subject to hand editing and revision? If so, I don't think it falls under section 6. I think there's two ways to look at it. If you look at it through a non-technical lense, the translation is copyrighted and hence you can't simply slap a GPLv2+ license on it. If you want to view it technically, I think the current explanations don't account for copyright on the sequence of non copyrightable chunks; or, if you might randomize your submissions, that the cached results don't amount to copying chunks of the translation dictionary used by the service. US copyright law recognizes that there may be creative expression in the selection and organization of factual information. This is why a phonebook (or a timezone database!), which has a trivial structure of organization and is intended to be exhaustive, is not recognized as having a copyright So, you claim that a translation dictionary isn't copyrightable? I'm not sure this assumption is true -- which words to map to which words isn't factual, it is a judgement call and creative interpretation based on context. Different translators may come up with different word choices. Also, if you're in Europe, you may also have to comply with database laws, which, as I understand it, protect against copying of sweat-of-the-brow collections. So when you choose what bits to feed into the machine and how to assemble the output, the new copyright that attaches is yours, assuming that the choosing and assembling is non-trivially creative; the machine doesn't hold any copyright. While it may be true that the translation process itself doesn't create a derived work, I believe the incorporation of a large corpus of individual creative choices found in the translation mapping do make the resulting translation a derived work. If not, we'd have some strange force of nature which magically aligned peoples minds to consider the same words to have the same meanings ;) I'm not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. Best, Clark -- 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/1332784824.2833.140661054298621.41648...@webmail.messagingengine.com
Re: Using freetranslation.mobi to translate .po files
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: The translator would be violating the GPL, but since this is fair use, violating the GPL this way would be legal. What is the translator doing in the example we are discussing that is violating the GPL? Please explain more, as I failed to understand what you mean from your terse comment. Which action is violating the GPL? The translator is creating a derivative work (his translation) and distributing it. This is one of the rights of the copyright holder and the GPL only gives him permission to do this if he puts his derivative work under GPL. Since he did not put this derived work under GPL, the GPL grants him no permission to distribute it, and he would be in violation of copyright if it wasn't for fair use. -- 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/alpine.lrh.2.00.120326540.10...@oxygen.rahul.net
Re: Using freetranslation.mobi to translate .po files
[Ken Arromdee] The translator is creating a derivative work (his translation) and distributing it. This is one of the rights of the copyright holder and the GPL only gives him permission to do this if he puts his derivative work under GPL. Since he did not put this derived work under GPL, the GPL grants him no permission to distribute it, and he would be in violation of copyright if it wasn't for fair use. Right. Then I understand your argument. But I fail to understand how you conclude that the translator did not put his derived work under GPL. I on the other hand believe that the translator here implicitly put this derived work under GPL, because not doing it would be in violation of the GPL. I believe assuming people follow the law and the license is a better assumtion to make than to assume that they break the law and the license. I guess this is based on my trust in other people to try to do what is legal and right. Why do you believe the translator in this case is not following the law and the license, and thus do not believe the translator put his derivative work under GPL? -- 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/20120326182304.ge7...@login1.uio.no
Re: Using freetranslation.mobi to translate .po files
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 02:00:24PM -0400, Clark C. Evans wrote: On Mon, Mar 26, 2012, at 09:53 AM, Steve Langasek wrote: In the GPLv3 only case, I think there's also still room to maneuver; even though the translation is initially a mechanical translation, once done, doesn't this translation then become a new part of the *source*, subject to hand editing and revision? If so, I don't think it falls under section 6. I think there's two ways to look at it. If you look at it through a non-technical lense, the translation is copyrighted and hence you can't simply slap a GPLv2+ license on it. If you want to view it technically, I think the current explanations don't account for copyright on the sequence of non copyrightable chunks; or, if you might randomize your submissions, that the cached results don't amount to copying chunks of the translation dictionary used by the service. I think you might want to familiarize yourself with copyright law in more depth. The rules on this stuff are well established, within the technical domain that is law. Copyright attaches to creative expressions by human beings. US copyright law recognizes that there may be creative expression in the selection and organization of factual information. This is why a phonebook (or a timezone database!), which has a trivial structure of organization and is intended to be exhaustive, is not recognized as having a copyright So, you claim that a translation dictionary isn't copyrightable? I'm not saying that at all. A dictionary may be much more than a collection of facts; there may be selection of terms, creativity in how alternative translations are ordered or decided between, and so forth. However, the act of *using* the translation dictionary to translate something strips away the creative, copyrightable aspects, leaving only the copying of bare information and not any creative expression. So copyright in many cases protects against someone taking your translation dictionary verbatim and publishing copies of it, but someone can still use that dictionary as part of a machine (or human) translation without the dictionary author's copyright attaching to the translation. I'm not sure this assumption is true -- which words to map to which words isn't factual, it is a judgement call and creative interpretation based on context. I don't think that it being a judgement call is sufficient to satisfy the requirement for creativity under copyright law, and certainly not if it's a *machine* doing the judging. The mappings certainly are a matter of fact; otherwise there would be no such thing as a wrong translation. So I really think the creativity here is negligible. Certainly when I'm translating something, my effort is spent on finding the *right* words, not the *creative* ones. Different translators may come up with different word choices. Also, if you're in Europe, you may also have to comply with database laws, which, as I understand it, protect against copying of sweat-of-the-brow collections. AIUI that's accurate as far as it goes; but again, what's being done here is not copying a dictionary but using it. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Using freetranslation.mobi to translate .po files
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 08:49:45AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: The most important argument is [...] the fact that that there is no terms of service for http://freetranslation.mobi stating otherwise, make me assume this service is following the law and license of the texts it is given. If I ask a random person on the street to translate a GPLed text fragment, and the person give me a translated text fragment back, will the resulting text fragment still be GPLed? Assuming the text fragment was copyrightable in the first place, I believe it will be, as otherwise the translator would be said to violate the GPL and I fail to see what action involved could possibly violate the GPL. I do not think your argument is sound. Assume I write a text, publish it under a license which basically says that everyone translating it ows me EUR 1000, and then ask a random person on the street to translate it (even without mentioning how it is licensed). Would you say that I am entitled to any money? My guess is that in all sane jurisdictions I am not. In case of the GPL, I think it is you who does not comply: Redistribution (as in: submitting to a tranlation service) requires you to accompany the (in this case modified) work with copyright information and a license grant. If freetranslation.mobi provides no means for you to inform them about copyright and license, you have no permission to use that service on GPLed material (unless copyrighted by yourself, or dual licensed, or ...). I am not a lawyer. This is not law advice. Best regards, Mark Weyer -- 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/20120326201539.GA1848@debian
Re: Using freetranslation.mobi to translate .po files
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: I on the other hand believe that the translator here implicitly put this derived work under GPL, because not doing it would be in violation of the GPL. I believe assuming people follow the law and the license is a better assumtion to make than to assume that they break the law and the license. If it's GPLV3, GPLV3 has a fair use clause. So the translator is following the law and the license--yet is not putting the translation under GPL, and the translation can't be distributed further (since that would *not* be fair use). GPLV2 has no fair use clause, so with GPLV2 the translator would indeed be violating the license, but he'd be violating the license *legally*--he wouldn't be breaking the law, since fair use is legal. -- 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/alpine.lrh.2.00.1203261412250.20...@oxygen.rahul.net
Re: Using freetranslation.mobi to translate .po files
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012, Mark Weyer wrote: I do not think your argument is sound. Assume I write a text, publish it under a license which basically says that everyone translating it ows me EUR 1000, and then ask a random person on the street to translate it (even without mentioning how it is licensed). Would you say that I am entitled to any money? My guess is that in all sane jurisdictions I am not. Translating it if you have a copy, or to give to someone else who you're translating it for, is fair use. Therefore they don't have to pay you any money, and the license is irrelevant, at least in the USA. With your reference to EUR 1000, I assume you're not in the USA, so you might not have fair use. But even then, if you give someone something of your own to translate, you gave them an implied license to do the translation. If you give him a work made by someone else, however, you can't grant an implied license. -- 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/alpine.lrh.2.00.1203261423000.20...@oxygen.rahul.net
Re: Using freetranslation.mobi to translate .po files
[Clark C. Evans] It seems Petter is arguing that he might be able to work around the copyright law by only translating a small piece at a time and then assembling the translated pieces. Since I didn't see any emphatic 'no' to this, and I somewhat recently got this particular type of case explained by a lawyer (one of which, I'm not), I feel the need to chime in. This is not a workaround. It is simply repeating the procedure to translate everything. The amount put together in the end is the amount you look at. We covered this in one of my college courses last semester, since one student quoted every other line or so, from another paper. The student was taken from class and rumor is expelled for plagiarism. A complaint by another student brought into class one of the school lawyers, and we got a QA session, which I took advantage of. The way it was explained (pertinent to United States law) is that Fair Use does allow small parts to be used. If you use many small parts, then the amount considered is the sum, not the size of each piece. To compare this to programming, Fair Use dictates I could technically open up any source code and borrow a line (so long as its not under a patent) for use in another program. The 'workaround' says I should be able to copy and paste each line individually, then put them back in the right order and call it mine, to license as I see fit... after all I only copied a single line under Fair Use, just many times, right? Wrong, the totality is considered, and you violate Fair Use since the sum of work is what is taken into account. Upon violating Fair Use, you put yourself in violation of licenses, laws, and so on and so forth. Regarding Fair Use and international law, I'm in the dark, however I am fairly certain that most Fair Use laws in sane localities would take into account the sum of work, rather than chunk size. -- -Felyza -- 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/CAHzo7KL5fDvsivRK6dp=ubvfkrwqptf3i+q4fxavwxszgp0...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Using freetranslation.mobi to translate .po files
Felyza Wishbringer fel...@gmail.com writes: Regarding Fair Use and international law, I'm in the dark, however I am fairly certain that most Fair Use laws in sane localities would take into account the sum of work, rather than chunk size. Is that by definition – i.e. that, if a jurisdiction does not behave that way, you disqualify them from being a “sane jurisdiction”? Or do you have a set of sane jurisdictions that isn't dependent on that behaviour, and have evidentiary support for your being fairly certain they behave in the manner you describe? -- \“[R]ightful liberty is unobstructed action, according to our | `\will, within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of | _o__) others.” —Thomas Jefferson, 1819 | Ben Finney -- 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/87limmhke5@benfinney.id.au
Re: Using freetranslation.mobi to translate .po files
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:01 PM, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote: [Ben Finney] Is that by definition – i.e. that, if a jurisdiction does not behave that way, you disqualify them from being a “sane jurisdiction”? Or do you have a set of sane jurisdictions that isn't dependent on that behaviour, and have evidentiary support for your being fairly certain they behave in the manner you describe? I appreciate your giving me an opportunity to learn something new, and here is what I learned, and how it affects the topic. I see you have an Australian (.au) address. I assume you became defensive since there is no 'fair use' in the AU fair dealing law. In a paper published by the Australian Copyright Council, it breaks it down as you're not allowed to use anything without permission, with the exceptions that you do not need permission if what you are using is not an important or distinctive part of the copyright material, nor if usage falls within explicit fair dealing exceptions (which allow for research on the subject, reviewing the subject, news relating to the subject, subject based attorney needs, or private or internal usage by individual or company). Which, to this non-lawyer, sounds very much like US copyright law, and the 'important or distinctive part of the copyright material' sounds a lot like the 'sane' version of fair use, albeit under a different name. The exceptions given that allow for certain cases to ignore copyright do not include documentation of software that is meant to be distributed. For the case in point, if this is the governing law of the documentation issue, from what I can tell, there would be no issues with translating a work under any system, so long as the translation is for personal use only. However, no portion of the translation (large or small) would be allowable if it is decided that the translation itself is copyrighted by the company which has created the translation database. As you asked a fairly personal question (my usage of 'sane'), to answer it directly.. what I, myself, considers sane is 'you can't copy and distribute copyrighted works, without regard for copyright, if what is copied is a substantial portion of the original work'. If you disagree that is sane, that is your human right, but I will differ on the point. -- -Felyza -- 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/CAHzo7KL47aUWxiPiB+ytAYqFTPbe45bL+Cuat6t5-iBk=qp...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Using freetranslation.mobi to translate .po files
Felyza Wishbringer fel...@gmail.com writes: On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:01 PM, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote: [Ben Finney] Felyza Wishbringer wrote: I am fairly certain that most Fair Use laws in sane localities would take into account the sum of work, rather than chunk size. Is that by definition – i.e. that, if a jurisdiction does not behave that way, you disqualify them from being a “sane jurisdiction”? Or do you have a set of sane jurisdictions that isn't dependent on that behaviour, and have evidentiary support for your being fairly certain they behave in the manner you describe? I appreciate your giving me an opportunity to learn something new, and here is what I learned, and how it affects the topic. I see you have an Australian (.au) address. I assume you became defensive since there is no 'fair use' in the AU fair dealing law. You assume incorrectly, on two points: I didn't become defensive, and my questions weren't related to AU law. As you asked a fairly personal question (my usage of 'sane') That's not a personal question (and your assumption that it is personal is rather defensive). You used a term (“Fair Use laws in sane localities”) that is wide open to subjective interpretation, and I wanted you to state what you meant in a more independently-verifiable manner. That's pretty much the opposite of a personal question. to answer it directly.. what I, myself, considers sane is 'you can't copy and distribute copyrighted works, without regard for copyright, if what is copied is a substantial portion of the original work'. I see. Your usage of “Fair Use laws in sane localities” is crafted to exclude any localities which don't already behave the way you assume they will. So your statement above reduces to a tautology: most jurisdictions that have that behaviour are jurisdictions that have that behavior. Thanks for confirming. -- \ “If [a technology company] has confidence in their future | `\ ability to innovate, the importance they place on protecting | _o__) their past innovations really should decline.” —Gary Barnett | Ben Finney -- 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/87vclqfvqp@benfinney.id.au
Re: Using freetranslation.mobi to translate .po files
[Clark C. Evans] It seems Petter is arguing that he might be able to work around the copyright law by only translating a small piece at a time and then assembling the translated pieces. The most important argument is not this, but the fact that that there is no terms of service for http://freetranslation.mobi stating otherwise, make me assume this service is following the law and license of the texts it is given. If I ask a random person on the street to translate a GPLed text fragment, and the person give me a translated text fragment back, will the resulting text fragment still be GPLed? Assuming the text fragment was copyrightable in the first place, I believe it will be, as otherwise the translator would be said to violate the GPL and I fail to see what action involved could possibly violate the GPL. Instead of a random person, I hand it to http://freetranslation.mobi. You seem to claim that I would not get a GPLed text fragment back because the random person ask his friend for help with the translation, and there might exist a agreement between the random person and his friend that allow the friend to violate the GPL. I believe such agreements are irrelevant for me. If such agreement exist between the two, they would be the ones violating the GPL, not me, and we could sue them for GPL violatins if we wanted to. Did I misunderstand your argument? You also seem to assume that Google Translate is involved when http://freetranslation.mobi is translating text. I do not know if this is the case, and you have not presented anything making me believe you know this either. I suggest that the developer may want to *contact* Google tell them what you wish. They may be willing to accept the input under the terms of the GPL and produce output under those same terms. Especially if the output is reviewed and alternative, corrective phrase translations submitted back to Google under terms which they could use to improve their translation service. Given that I do not intend to use Google Translate, I fail to see how contacting Google to ask about http://freetranslation.mobi is interesting. Just asking might be seen as slanter against http://freetranslation.mobi, as it involves claiming that http://freetranslation.mobi is breaking the copyright law. As I said above, I assume http://freetranslation.mobi follow the law until proven otherwise. -- 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/20120325064944.ge...@login1.uio.no
Re: Using freetranslation.mobi to translate .po files
I am truly sorry I do not have the time to address the other points at this time, and I will try to do so as soon as I can (which is hopefully not earlier than two weeks from now). Either way, there is one point that is reasonably easy to comment on. I will do so now, if you will excuse me from the apparently selective argument. On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 09:23:39PM -0400, Clark C. Evans wrote: It seems Petter is arguing that he might be able to work around the copyright law by only translating a small piece at a time and then assembling the translated pieces. I'm skeptical of this logic, since it doesn't consider the intent of the effort and the work as a whole. Phrases in a creative composition such as a manual arn't a set of independent facts that can be treated individually. Actually, regardless of intent, I reinforce the original premise that copyright protects the intellectual, creative work of an individual. That might indeed be an issue considering your other point (that someone necessarily arranged for a certain array of words to be combined at translation time, which would be considered creative translation work). However, I would say that is not a problem if your translating one word or very small expressions at a time, for the sole reason that the creative effort that materializes in a particular way of combining different words varying with the context would then be absent. Google thankfully cannot hold copyright for the dictionary meaning of words, so we could be protected if the service is used with caution. On second thought, the person engaging in software translation in Debian or anywhere else is expected (or so I hope) not to simply copy paste the translation, but to exercise judgment on the result etc. The difference starts to become a little fuzzy at this point, at least in my opinion, and we would only have a greater degree of certainty when backed up by case law of the jurisdiction relevant to each case, but I consider it fair to compare that more to the research of a translator which is creating material subject to his own copyright (in analysing the usual meanings of foreign words) than to a derivative work to the automated translation that whatever.mobi got from Google Translator. This - mainly the last paragraph - is much more brainstorming than anything else and shall not be relied upon as legal advice. Rebuttal is also very much welcome. Cheers, Guilherme Pastore gpast...@debian.org -- 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/20120325075150.ga9...@pastore.eng.br
Re: Using freetranslation.mobi to translate .po files
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012, at 02:09 PM, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: Now Petter had the idea to feed this into google translations, using http://freetranslation.mobi and committed the result back into the debian-edu-doc svn repository. I don't think you can do this. #1 Translations are copyrightable. Small translations may be non-copyrightable or fair use, but from what I understand, we're talking about the translation of a whole manual. #2 Copyright is automatic, not something you need to claim. Hence, those who produce the translation hold the copyrights to this material. You need permission of the original copyright holder to authorize the translation and the permission of the translator to license their work back under the GPL. #3 FreeTranslation doesn't have a legal notice that puts their translations into the public domain or under the GPL; Google's terms of service explicitly reserves copyright for any content you may access and does not grant a license for its use. Hence, the output of the translation process is *not* licensed under the GPL 2+ as one would need to commit it back. #4 FreeTranslation doesn't have a terms of service; Google's terms assume the right to publicly distribute derivative works under terms incompatible with the GPL. Hence, use of this service with GPL'd material may be both a violation of the original author's license and also Google's terms of service (since you lack the the ability to license the original work as Google requires). It seems Petter is arguing that he might be able to work around the copyright law by only translating a small piece at a time and then assembling the translated pieces. I'm skeptical of this logic, since it doesn't consider the intent of the effort and the work as a whole. Phrases in a creative composition such as a manual arn't a set of independent facts that can be treated individually. The other argument is that the translation service is fully automated and hence there is no expressive creativity in the translations. I think this is a false assumption, the service itself required creativity to implement, and the specific choice of word associations in specific contexts is not algorithmic nor factual, but individual calls by translation submitters who have granted the translation service license to use their work. I suggest that the developer may want to *contact* Google tell them what you wish. They may be willing to accept the input under the terms of the GPL and produce output under those same terms. Especially if the output is reviewed and alternative, corrective phrase translations submitted back to Google under terms which they could use to improve their translation service. I'm not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice. Clark -- 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/1332638619.18646.140661053646433.4b832...@webmail.messagingengine.com
Re: Using freetranslation.mobi to translate .po files
Le Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 09:23:39PM -0400, Clark C. Evans a écrit : I suggest that the developer may want to *contact* Google tell them what you wish. Hi all, I just sent the following message in the following form. http://support.google.com/translate/toolkit/bin/request.py?hl=encontact_type=contact_us Email address: ple...@debian.org Subject: Sharing and Publishing Brief summary: Terms of use when translating through an intermediate. Message: Dear Google, . freetranslation.mobi offers translation services that are Powered by Google, and I wonder if using freetranslation.mobi implies agreeing to Google's terms of service. . The question arises from a discussion where it is wondered if it is possible to submit copylefted material to Google Translate. You can see the (longish) thread the URL below. . http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2012/03/msg00031.html . By the way, can you confirm if the following terms of service are relevant to Google Translate ? . http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/#toc-content . Have a nice week-end, . -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan Let's see if we have an answer. Cheers, -- 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/20120325021327.gb5...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: Using freetranslation.mobi to translate .po files
Clark C. Evans c...@clarkevans.com writes: On Mon, Mar 12, 2012, at 02:09 PM, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: Now Petter had the idea to feed this into google translations, using http://freetranslation.mobi and committed the result back into the debian-edu-doc svn repository. I don't think you can do this. #1 Translations are copyrightable. Small translations may be non-copyrightable or fair use, but from what I understand, we're talking about the translation of a whole manual. Translations done manually by a person are copyrightable, on the theory that there is creative expression involved in producing the translation. When there is only an automated process producing the translation, and no creative decision made in the course of producing that translation, on what basis is the result under a new copyright? #2 Copyright is automatic, not something you need to claim. Copyright is automatic on works of creative expression. How is it automatic on something produced by an entirely mechanical, non-creative process? #4 FreeTranslation doesn't have a terms of service Nor can I find any information at that site on whether a person is involved making creative decisions on any work of translation it produces. But my understanding is that the site procudes translations in an entirely mechanical, automated manner without creative decisions. Is that not the case? The other argument is that the translation service is fully automated and hence there is no expressive creativity in the translations. Yes. This negates your arguments about copyright obtaining automatically to the output, since AIUI copyright is applicable only for specific works of creative expression by a person. I think this is a false assumption, the service itself required creativity to implement, and the specific choice of word associations in specific contexts is not algorithmic nor factual, but individual calls by translation submitters who have granted the translation service license to use their work. By the same argument, the GCC copyright holders can claim to hold copyright in every program compiled using GCC, and the copyright holders in PHP can claim copyright in every web page that program renders. I think that's exactly as unsound as the argument you present. I suggest that the developer may want to *contact* Google tell them what you wish. Yes, I agree with that advice. It's rarely wise to make assumptions about the law, or of the intent of copyright holders, based on logical coherence or cogency. But just as much, I'd resist the assumption that Google have any claim to copyright in the product of automated processes they happen to have designed. -- \ “The only tyrant I accept in this world is the still voice | `\ within.” —Mohandas K. Gandhi | _o__) | Ben Finney -- 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/87limpieyf@benfinney.id.au
Re: Using freetranslation.mobi to translate .po files (Was: google translating gpl2+ licenced documentation...)
Le Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 02:09:00PM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen a écrit : I wrote a small perl script to process through a .po file and pass all completely untranslated text fragments to this service and store the resulting translation (if it succeeded) as a fuzzy translation in the .po file. The translation then need to be reviewed by a human before it is used to generate the documentation in question. I checked in rough translations in debian-edu-doc after first running this new tool for en-nb and manually checking a few of the new translations. Hello everybody, this reminds me the behaviour of virtaal, which will propose to pre-fill tranlsations with the output of Microsoft Translator. If it is not possible to translate copylefted text with such services, maybe the functionality should be disabled by default ? 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/20120312133343.ga29...@falafel.plessy.net
