[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/licenses gplv3-the-program.de.html gplv3-th...
|
From: |
GNUN |
|
Subject: |
www/licenses gplv3-the-program.de.html gplv3-th... |
|
Date: |
Tue, 15 Feb 2022 08:34:10 -0500 (EST) |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: GNUN <gnun> 22/02/15 08:34:10
Modified files:
licenses : gplv3-the-program.de.html
gplv3-the-program.ja.html
gplv3-the-program.pt-br.html
Added files:
licenses/po : gplv3-the-program.de-diff.html
gplv3-the-program.ja-diff.html
gplv3-the-program.pt-br-diff.html
Log message:
Automatic update by GNUnited Nations.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/licenses/gplv3-the-program.de.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.2&r2=1.3
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/licenses/gplv3-the-program.ja.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.13&r2=1.14
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/licenses/gplv3-the-program.pt-br.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.4&r2=1.5
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/licenses/po/gplv3-the-program.de-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/licenses/po/gplv3-the-program.ja-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/licenses/po/gplv3-the-program.pt-br-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
Patches:
Index: gplv3-the-program.de.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/licenses/gplv3-the-program.de.html,v
retrieving revision 1.2
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -b -r1.2 -r1.3
--- gplv3-the-program.de.html 26 Oct 2017 12:58:37 -0000 1.2
+++ gplv3-the-program.de.html 15 Feb 2022 13:34:02 -0000 1.3
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/licenses/gplv3-the-program.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/licenses/po/gplv3-the-program.de.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/licenses/po/gplv3-the-program.de.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/licenses/gplv3-the-program.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE"
value="/licenses/po/gplv3-the-program.de-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2021-12-17" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/licenses/gplv3-the-program.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.de.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -9,6 +14,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/licenses/po/gplv3-the-program.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.de.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.de.html" -->
<h2>Was bedeutet <em>âdas Programmâ</em> in GNU GPLv3?</h2>
<h3>Resümee</h3>
@@ -350,7 +356,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Letzte Ãnderung:
-$Date: 2017/10/26 12:58:37 $
+$Date: 2022/02/15 13:34:02 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: gplv3-the-program.ja.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/licenses/gplv3-the-program.ja.html,v
retrieving revision 1.13
retrieving revision 1.14
diff -u -b -r1.13 -r1.14
--- gplv3-the-program.ja.html 3 Feb 2016 09:13:16 -0000 1.13
+++ gplv3-the-program.ja.html 15 Feb 2022 13:34:03 -0000 1.14
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/licenses/gplv3-the-program.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/licenses/po/gplv3-the-program.ja.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/licenses/po/gplv3-the-program.ja.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/licenses/gplv3-the-program.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE"
value="/licenses/po/gplv3-the-program.ja-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2021-12-17" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/licenses/gplv3-the-program.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.ja.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -8,6 +13,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/licenses/po/gplv3-the-program.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.ja.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.ja.html" -->
<h2>ãããã°ã©ã ãã¯GPLv3ã§ãªã«ãæå³ããã?</h2>
<h3>ã¾ã¨ã</h3>
@@ -185,7 +191,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
æçµæ´æ°:
-$Date: 2016/02/03 09:13:16 $
+$Date: 2022/02/15 13:34:03 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: gplv3-the-program.pt-br.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/licenses/gplv3-the-program.pt-br.html,v
retrieving revision 1.4
retrieving revision 1.5
diff -u -b -r1.4 -r1.5
--- gplv3-the-program.pt-br.html 22 May 2020 22:05:15 -0000 1.4
+++ gplv3-the-program.pt-br.html 15 Feb 2022 13:34:04 -0000 1.5
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/licenses/gplv3-the-program.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/licenses/po/gplv3-the-program.pt-br.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/licenses/po/gplv3-the-program.pt-br.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/licenses/gplv3-the-program.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE"
value="/licenses/po/gplv3-the-program.pt-br-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2021-12-17" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/licenses/gplv3-the-program.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.pt-br.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -9,6 +14,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/licenses/po/gplv3-the-program.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.pt-br.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.pt-br.html" -->
<h2>O que âthe Programâ significa na GPLv3?</h2>
<h3>Resumo</h3>
@@ -388,7 +394,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Ãltima atualização:
-$Date: 2020/05/22 22:05:15 $
+$Date: 2022/02/15 13:34:04 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: po/gplv3-the-program.de-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/gplv3-the-program.de-diff.html
diff -N po/gplv3-the-program.de-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/gplv3-the-program.de-diff.html 15 Feb 2022 13:34:08 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,326 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/licenses/gplv3-the-program.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: <span
class="removed"><del><strong>1.77</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.96 -->
+<!-- This page is derived from
/server/standards/boilerplate.html</em></ins></span> -->
+<title>What <span class="removed"><del><strong>does "the
Program" mean</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>Does
“The Program” Mean</em></ins></span> in GPLv3?
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/licenses/po/gplv3-the-program.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="article
reduced-width"></em></ins></span>
+<h2>What <span class="removed"><del><strong>does "the Program"
mean</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>Does “The
Program” Mean</em></ins></span> in GPLv3?</h2>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div
class="thin"></div></em></ins></span>
+
+<h3>Summary</h3>
+
+<p>In version 3 of the GNU General Public License (GPLv3), the term
<span class="removed"><del><strong>"the
+Program"</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>”the
+Program”</em></ins></span> means one particular work that is licensed
under GPLv3 and is
+received by a particular licensee from an upstream licensor or
+distributor. The Program is the particular work of software that you
+received in a given instance of GPLv3 licensing, as you received it.</p>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>"The
Program"</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p>“The
Program”</em></ins></span> cannot mean <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"all</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“all</em></ins></span> the works ever licensed
+under <span class="removed"><del><strong>GPLv3";</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>GPLv3”;</em></ins></span> that
interpretation makes no sense, because <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"the
+Program"</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>“the
+Program”</em></ins></span> is singular: those many different programs do
not constitute
+one program.</p>
+
+<p>In particular, this applies to the clause in section 10, paragraph 3
+of GPLv3 which <span
class="removed"><del><strong>states</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>states:</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<blockquote><p>[Y]ou may not initiate litigation (including a
cross-claim or
+ counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any patent claim is
+ infringed by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing
+ the Program or any portion of it.</p></blockquote>
+
+<p>This is a condition that limits the ability of a GPLv3 licensee to
+bring a lawsuit accusing the particular GPLv3-covered software
+received by the licensee of patent infringement. It does not speak to
+the situation in which a party who is a licensee of GPLv3-covered
+program A, but not of unrelated GPLv3-covered program B, initiates
+litigation accusing program B of patent infringement. If the party is
+a licensee of both A and B, that party would potentially lose rights
+to B, but not to A.</p>
+
+<p>Since software patents pose an unjust threat to all software
+developers, all software distributors, and all software users, we
+would abolish them if we could. Indeed, we campaign to do so. But we
+think it would have been self-defeating to make the license conditions
+for any one GPL-covered program go so far as to require a promise
+to never attack any GPL-covered program.</p>
+
+<h3>Further analysis</h3>
+
+<p>GPLv3 defines <span class="removed"><del><strong>"the
Program"</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>“the
Program”</em></ins></span> as follows:</p>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><blockquote><p>"The
Program"</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><blockquote><p>“The
Program”</em></ins></span> refers to any copyrightable work
+ licensed under this License.</p></blockquote>
+
+<p>Some have contended that this definition can be read to mean all
+GPLv3-licensed works, rather than the one particular GPLv3-licensed
+work received by a licensee in a given licensing context. These
+readers have expressed particular concern about the consequences of
+such an interpretation for the new patent provisions of GPLv3,
+especially the patent termination condition found in the third
+paragraph <span class="inserted"><ins><em>of section</em></ins></span> 10 and
the express patent license grant made by upstream
+contributors under the third paragraph of section 11. This overbroad
+reading of <span class="removed"><del><strong>"the
Program"</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>“the
Program”</em></ins></span> is incorrect, and contrary to our intent as
+the drafters of GPLv3.</p>
+
+<p>The word <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"any"</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“any”</em></ins></span> is susceptible to
multiple, subtly different
+shades of meaning in English. In some contexts, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"any"</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“any”</em></ins></span> means
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>"every"</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“every”</em></ins></span> or <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"all";</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“all”;</em></ins></span> in others,
including the definition
+of <span class="removed"><del><strong>"the
Program"</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>“the
Program”</em></ins></span> in GPLv3, it suggests <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"one</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“one</em></ins></span> particular
+instance of, selected from many <span
class="removed"><del><strong>possibilities".</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>possibilities.”</em></ins></span> This
variability has
+to be resolved by the context. This context resolves it, but it requires
+some thought.</p>
+
+<p>We could have worded the definition of <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"the Program"</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“the Program”</em></ins></span>
+differently, such as by using <span class="removed"><del><strong>"a
particular"</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>“a
particular”</em></ins></span> instead of
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>"any",</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“any,”</em></ins></span> but that
would not have eliminated the need for thought.
+The phrase <span class="removed"><del><strong>"a</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“a</em></ins></span> particular work
licensed under this <span
class="removed"><del><strong>License",</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>License,”</em></ins></span>
+regarded in isolation, would not necessarily signify <span
class="removed"><del><strong>*the*</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em><em>the</em></em></ins></span> particular
work
+received by a particular <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"you"</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“you”</em></ins></span> in a particular
act of licensing
+or distribution. Our review of other free software licenses shows that
+they raise similar issues of interpretation, with words of general
+reference used in order to facilitate license reuse.</p>
+
+<p>Given that no choice is so clear that all other candidate meanings
+must be rejected, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"any"</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“any”</em></ins></span> has certain
advantages. It is a somewhat
+more informal and less legalistic usage than the possible
+alternatives, an appropriate register for the developers reading
+and applying the license. Moreover, the usage of <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"any",</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“any,”</em></ins></span> through
+its suggestion of selection out of many qualifying possibilities,
+has the effect of emphasizing the reusability of GPLv3 for
+multiple works of software and in multiple licensing situations.
+The GNU GPL is intended to be used by many developers on their programs
+and that too needs to be clear.</p>
+
+<p>The same use of <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"any"</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“any”</em></ins></span> that has given
rise to interpretive
+concerns under GPLv3 exists in GPLv2, in its corresponding definition.
+Section 0 of GPLv2 states:</p>
+
+<blockquote><p>This License applies to any program or other work
which
+ contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be
+ distributed under the terms of this General Public License. The
+ <span class="removed"><del><strong>"Program",</strong></del></span>
+ <span class="inserted"><ins><em>“Program,”</em></ins></span>
below, refers to any such program or work, and a
+ <span class="removed"><del><strong>"work</strong></del></span>
+ <span class="inserted"><ins><em>“work</em></ins></span> based on the
<span class="removed"><del><strong>Program"</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Program”</em></ins></span> means either the
Program or any
+ derivative work under copyright law …</p></blockquote>
+
+<p>However, it has always been the understanding of the FSF and others in
+the GPL-using community that <span class="removed"><del><strong>"the
Program"</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>“the
Program”</em></ins></span> in GPLv2 means the
+particular GPL-covered work that you receive, before you make any
+possible modifications to it. The definition of <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"the Program"</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“the Program”</em></ins></span> in
+GPLv3 is intended to preserve this meaning.</p>
+
+<p>We can find no clause in GPLv3 in which applying the suggested broad
+interpretation of <span class="removed"><del><strong>"the
Program"</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>“the
Program”</em></ins></span> (and the superset term
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>"covered
work")</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“covered work”)</em></ins></span>
would make sense or have any practical
+significance, consistent with the wording of the clause and its drafting
+history. The patent provisions of GPLv3 are a case in point.</p>
+
+<p>The third paragraph of section 11 states:</p>
+
+<blockquote><p>Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive,
worldwide,
+ royalty-free patent license under the contributor's essential patent
+ claims, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run,
+ modify and propagate the contents of its contributor
+ version.</p></blockquote>
+
+<p>A <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"contributor"</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“contributor”</em></ins></span> is
defined as <span class="removed"><del><strong>"a</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“a</em></ins></span> copyright holder who
+authorizes use under this License of the Program or a work on which the
+Program is <span
class="removed"><del><strong>based."</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>based.”</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>The broad reading of <span class="removed"><del><strong>"the
Program",</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>“the
Program,”</em></ins></span> it has been suggested,
+gives rise to an unreasonably broad patent license grant. The reasoning is
+that, for a given GPLv3 licensee, the set of contributors granting patent
+licenses becomes all GPLv3 licensors of all GPLv3-covered works in the
+world, and not merely licensors of the specific work received by that
+licensee in a particular act of licensing.</p>
+
+<p>Close attention to the wording of the patent license grant, however,
+shows that these concerns are unfounded. In order to exercise the
+permissions of the patent license grant, a GPLv3 licensee must have
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>"the</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“the</em></ins></span> contents of [the
contributor's] contributor <span
class="removed"><del><strong>version"</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>version”</em></ins></span> in his
+possession. If he does, then he is necessarily a recipient of that
+material, licensed to him under GPLv3.</p>
+
+<p>Therefore, contributors are always the actual copyright licensors of
the
+material that is the subject of the patent license grant. The user
+benefiting from the patent license grant has ultimately received the
+material covered by the grant from those contributors. If it were
+otherwise, the patent license grant would be meaningless, because the
+exercise of its permissions is tied to the contributor's <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"contributor
+version".</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“contributor
+version.”</em></ins></span> The contributors and the section 11 patent
licensee stand
+in a direct or indirect distribution relationship. Therefore, section 11,
+paragraph 3 does not require you to grant a patent license to anyone who is
+not also your copyright licensee. (Non-contributor redistributors remain
+subject to applicable implied patent license doctrine and to the special
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>"automatic
extension"</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“automatic
extension”</em></ins></span> provision of section 11, paragraph
6.)</p>
+
+<p>There is similarly no basis for the broad reading of <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"the
+Program"</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>“the
+Program”</em></ins></span> when one considers the patent-related clause
in the third
+paragraph of section 10. This clause provides:</p>
+
+<blockquote><p>[Y]ou may not initiate litigation (including a
cross-claim
+ or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any patent claim is infringed
+ by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the Program or
+ any portion of it.</p></blockquote>
+
+<p>Coupled with the patent license grant of section 11, paragraph 3, and
+the termination clause of section 8, this section 10 clause gives rise
+to a patent termination condition similar in scope to that contained
+in the Apache License version 2.0.</p>
+
+<p>The FSF sympathizes with the intent of broad patent retaliation
+clauses in some free software licenses, since the abolition of
+software patents is greatly to be desired. However, we think that
+broad patent retaliation provisions in software licenses are unlikely
+to benefit the community, especially those clauses which can be
+triggered by patent litigation concerning other programs unrelated to
+the software whose license permissions are being terminated. We were
+very cautious in taking steps to incorporate patent retaliation into
+GPLv3, and the section 10, paragraph 3 clause is intended to be
+narrower than patent retaliation clauses in several other well-known
+licenses, notably the Mozilla Public License version 1.1, with respect
+to termination of patent licenses.</p>
+
+<p>If the suggested interpretation of <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"the Program"</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“the Program”</em></ins></span>
applied to the
+section 10, paragraph 3 clause, the result would be a radical
+departure from our consistent past statements and policies concerning
+patent retaliation, which we clearly did not intend.</p>
+
+<p>Other text in GPL version 3 shows the same policy. The patent
+litigation clause in section 10 was added to Draft 3 of GPLv3 as a
+replacement for part of the previous clause 7(b)(5) (in Draft 2).
+Clause 7(b)(5) permitted the placement of two categories of patent
+termination provisions on GPLv3-licensed works:</p>
+
+<blockquote><p>terms that wholly or partially terminate, or allow
+ termination of, permission for use of the material they cover, for a user
+ who files a software patent lawsuit (that is, a lawsuit alleging that
+ some software infringes a patent) not filed in retaliation or defense
+ against the earlier filing of another software patent lawsuit, or in
+ which the allegedly infringing software includes some of the covered
+ material, possibly in combination with other software
+ …</p></blockquote>
+
+<p>Section 7 does not state the GPL's own policy; instead it says how far
+other compatible licenses can go. Thus, that text in section 7 would
+not have established broad patent retaliation; it only would have
+permitted combining GPL-covered code with other licenses that do such
+broad patent retaliation.</p>
+
+<p>Nonetheless, as explained in the Rationale for Draft 3, such broad
+retaliation was criticized because it could apply to software patent
+lawsuits in which the accused software was unrelated to the software
+that was the subject of the license. Seeing that there were no widely
+used licenses with which this would provide compatibility, in <span
class="removed"><del><strong>draft</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Draft</em></ins></span> 3
+we dropped broad patent retaliation from the range of GPL
+compatibility.</p>
+
+<p>We did so by replacing 7(b)(5) with text in section 10, in which we
+kept only what corresponded to the second category. The first
+category therefore reverted to being a GPL-incompatible <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"further
+restriction"</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“further
+restriction”</em></ins></span> in Draft 3, and likewise in GPL version 3
as actually
+published.
+</p>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p><a</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p class="back"><a</em></ins></span>
href="/licenses/gpl-faq.html">Return to the FAQ</a></p>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div></em></ins></span>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div <span
class="removed"><del><strong>id="footer"></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>id="footer" role="contentinfo"></em></ins></span>
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>.
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to <a
href="mailto:licensing@gnu.org"><licensing@gnu.org></a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">
+ <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. -->
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> translations
+of this article.</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+ be under CC BY-ND <span class="removed"><del><strong>3.0
US.</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>4.0.</em></ins></span> Please do NOT change or
remove this
+ without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+ Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+ document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+ document was modified, or published.
+
+ If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+ Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+ years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+ year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+ being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+
+ There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+ Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
+
+<p>Copyright © 2007, <span class="removed"><del><strong>2008,
2014</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2021</em></ins></span> Free Software Foundation,
Inc.</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative</strong></del></span>
+<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative</em></ins></span>
+Commons <span class="removed"><del><strong>Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United
States License</a>.
+</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
License</a>.</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2022/02/15 13:34:08 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong></div></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div><!-- for class="inner", starts
in the banner include --></em></ins></span>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: po/gplv3-the-program.ja-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/gplv3-the-program.ja-diff.html
diff -N po/gplv3-the-program.ja-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/gplv3-the-program.ja-diff.html 15 Feb 2022 13:34:08 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,326 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/licenses/gplv3-the-program.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: <span
class="removed"><del><strong>1.77</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.96 -->
+<!-- This page is derived from
/server/standards/boilerplate.html</em></ins></span> -->
+<title>What <span class="removed"><del><strong>does "the
Program" mean</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>Does
“The Program” Mean</em></ins></span> in GPLv3?
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/licenses/po/gplv3-the-program.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="article
reduced-width"></em></ins></span>
+<h2>What <span class="removed"><del><strong>does "the Program"
mean</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>Does “The
Program” Mean</em></ins></span> in GPLv3?</h2>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div
class="thin"></div></em></ins></span>
+
+<h3>Summary</h3>
+
+<p>In version 3 of the GNU General Public License (GPLv3), the term
<span class="removed"><del><strong>"the
+Program"</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>”the
+Program”</em></ins></span> means one particular work that is licensed
under GPLv3 and is
+received by a particular licensee from an upstream licensor or
+distributor. The Program is the particular work of software that you
+received in a given instance of GPLv3 licensing, as you received it.</p>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>"The
Program"</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p>“The
Program”</em></ins></span> cannot mean <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"all</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“all</em></ins></span> the works ever licensed
+under <span class="removed"><del><strong>GPLv3";</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>GPLv3”;</em></ins></span> that
interpretation makes no sense, because <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"the
+Program"</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>“the
+Program”</em></ins></span> is singular: those many different programs do
not constitute
+one program.</p>
+
+<p>In particular, this applies to the clause in section 10, paragraph 3
+of GPLv3 which <span
class="removed"><del><strong>states</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>states:</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<blockquote><p>[Y]ou may not initiate litigation (including a
cross-claim or
+ counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any patent claim is
+ infringed by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing
+ the Program or any portion of it.</p></blockquote>
+
+<p>This is a condition that limits the ability of a GPLv3 licensee to
+bring a lawsuit accusing the particular GPLv3-covered software
+received by the licensee of patent infringement. It does not speak to
+the situation in which a party who is a licensee of GPLv3-covered
+program A, but not of unrelated GPLv3-covered program B, initiates
+litigation accusing program B of patent infringement. If the party is
+a licensee of both A and B, that party would potentially lose rights
+to B, but not to A.</p>
+
+<p>Since software patents pose an unjust threat to all software
+developers, all software distributors, and all software users, we
+would abolish them if we could. Indeed, we campaign to do so. But we
+think it would have been self-defeating to make the license conditions
+for any one GPL-covered program go so far as to require a promise
+to never attack any GPL-covered program.</p>
+
+<h3>Further analysis</h3>
+
+<p>GPLv3 defines <span class="removed"><del><strong>"the
Program"</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>“the
Program”</em></ins></span> as follows:</p>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><blockquote><p>"The
Program"</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><blockquote><p>“The
Program”</em></ins></span> refers to any copyrightable work
+ licensed under this License.</p></blockquote>
+
+<p>Some have contended that this definition can be read to mean all
+GPLv3-licensed works, rather than the one particular GPLv3-licensed
+work received by a licensee in a given licensing context. These
+readers have expressed particular concern about the consequences of
+such an interpretation for the new patent provisions of GPLv3,
+especially the patent termination condition found in the third
+paragraph <span class="inserted"><ins><em>of section</em></ins></span> 10 and
the express patent license grant made by upstream
+contributors under the third paragraph of section 11. This overbroad
+reading of <span class="removed"><del><strong>"the
Program"</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>“the
Program”</em></ins></span> is incorrect, and contrary to our intent as
+the drafters of GPLv3.</p>
+
+<p>The word <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"any"</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“any”</em></ins></span> is susceptible to
multiple, subtly different
+shades of meaning in English. In some contexts, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"any"</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“any”</em></ins></span> means
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>"every"</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“every”</em></ins></span> or <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"all";</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“all”;</em></ins></span> in others,
including the definition
+of <span class="removed"><del><strong>"the
Program"</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>“the
Program”</em></ins></span> in GPLv3, it suggests <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"one</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“one</em></ins></span> particular
+instance of, selected from many <span
class="removed"><del><strong>possibilities".</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>possibilities.”</em></ins></span> This
variability has
+to be resolved by the context. This context resolves it, but it requires
+some thought.</p>
+
+<p>We could have worded the definition of <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"the Program"</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“the Program”</em></ins></span>
+differently, such as by using <span class="removed"><del><strong>"a
particular"</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>“a
particular”</em></ins></span> instead of
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>"any",</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“any,”</em></ins></span> but that
would not have eliminated the need for thought.
+The phrase <span class="removed"><del><strong>"a</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“a</em></ins></span> particular work
licensed under this <span
class="removed"><del><strong>License",</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>License,”</em></ins></span>
+regarded in isolation, would not necessarily signify <span
class="removed"><del><strong>*the*</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em><em>the</em></em></ins></span> particular
work
+received by a particular <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"you"</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“you”</em></ins></span> in a particular
act of licensing
+or distribution. Our review of other free software licenses shows that
+they raise similar issues of interpretation, with words of general
+reference used in order to facilitate license reuse.</p>
+
+<p>Given that no choice is so clear that all other candidate meanings
+must be rejected, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"any"</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“any”</em></ins></span> has certain
advantages. It is a somewhat
+more informal and less legalistic usage than the possible
+alternatives, an appropriate register for the developers reading
+and applying the license. Moreover, the usage of <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"any",</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“any,”</em></ins></span> through
+its suggestion of selection out of many qualifying possibilities,
+has the effect of emphasizing the reusability of GPLv3 for
+multiple works of software and in multiple licensing situations.
+The GNU GPL is intended to be used by many developers on their programs
+and that too needs to be clear.</p>
+
+<p>The same use of <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"any"</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“any”</em></ins></span> that has given
rise to interpretive
+concerns under GPLv3 exists in GPLv2, in its corresponding definition.
+Section 0 of GPLv2 states:</p>
+
+<blockquote><p>This License applies to any program or other work
which
+ contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be
+ distributed under the terms of this General Public License. The
+ <span class="removed"><del><strong>"Program",</strong></del></span>
+ <span class="inserted"><ins><em>“Program,”</em></ins></span>
below, refers to any such program or work, and a
+ <span class="removed"><del><strong>"work</strong></del></span>
+ <span class="inserted"><ins><em>“work</em></ins></span> based on the
<span class="removed"><del><strong>Program"</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Program”</em></ins></span> means either the
Program or any
+ derivative work under copyright law …</p></blockquote>
+
+<p>However, it has always been the understanding of the FSF and others in
+the GPL-using community that <span class="removed"><del><strong>"the
Program"</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>“the
Program”</em></ins></span> in GPLv2 means the
+particular GPL-covered work that you receive, before you make any
+possible modifications to it. The definition of <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"the Program"</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“the Program”</em></ins></span> in
+GPLv3 is intended to preserve this meaning.</p>
+
+<p>We can find no clause in GPLv3 in which applying the suggested broad
+interpretation of <span class="removed"><del><strong>"the
Program"</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>“the
Program”</em></ins></span> (and the superset term
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>"covered
work")</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“covered work”)</em></ins></span>
would make sense or have any practical
+significance, consistent with the wording of the clause and its drafting
+history. The patent provisions of GPLv3 are a case in point.</p>
+
+<p>The third paragraph of section 11 states:</p>
+
+<blockquote><p>Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive,
worldwide,
+ royalty-free patent license under the contributor's essential patent
+ claims, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run,
+ modify and propagate the contents of its contributor
+ version.</p></blockquote>
+
+<p>A <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"contributor"</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“contributor”</em></ins></span> is
defined as <span class="removed"><del><strong>"a</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“a</em></ins></span> copyright holder who
+authorizes use under this License of the Program or a work on which the
+Program is <span
class="removed"><del><strong>based."</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>based.”</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>The broad reading of <span class="removed"><del><strong>"the
Program",</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>“the
Program,”</em></ins></span> it has been suggested,
+gives rise to an unreasonably broad patent license grant. The reasoning is
+that, for a given GPLv3 licensee, the set of contributors granting patent
+licenses becomes all GPLv3 licensors of all GPLv3-covered works in the
+world, and not merely licensors of the specific work received by that
+licensee in a particular act of licensing.</p>
+
+<p>Close attention to the wording of the patent license grant, however,
+shows that these concerns are unfounded. In order to exercise the
+permissions of the patent license grant, a GPLv3 licensee must have
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>"the</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“the</em></ins></span> contents of [the
contributor's] contributor <span
class="removed"><del><strong>version"</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>version”</em></ins></span> in his
+possession. If he does, then he is necessarily a recipient of that
+material, licensed to him under GPLv3.</p>
+
+<p>Therefore, contributors are always the actual copyright licensors of
the
+material that is the subject of the patent license grant. The user
+benefiting from the patent license grant has ultimately received the
+material covered by the grant from those contributors. If it were
+otherwise, the patent license grant would be meaningless, because the
+exercise of its permissions is tied to the contributor's <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"contributor
+version".</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“contributor
+version.”</em></ins></span> The contributors and the section 11 patent
licensee stand
+in a direct or indirect distribution relationship. Therefore, section 11,
+paragraph 3 does not require you to grant a patent license to anyone who is
+not also your copyright licensee. (Non-contributor redistributors remain
+subject to applicable implied patent license doctrine and to the special
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>"automatic
extension"</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“automatic
extension”</em></ins></span> provision of section 11, paragraph
6.)</p>
+
+<p>There is similarly no basis for the broad reading of <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"the
+Program"</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>“the
+Program”</em></ins></span> when one considers the patent-related clause
in the third
+paragraph of section 10. This clause provides:</p>
+
+<blockquote><p>[Y]ou may not initiate litigation (including a
cross-claim
+ or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any patent claim is infringed
+ by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the Program or
+ any portion of it.</p></blockquote>
+
+<p>Coupled with the patent license grant of section 11, paragraph 3, and
+the termination clause of section 8, this section 10 clause gives rise
+to a patent termination condition similar in scope to that contained
+in the Apache License version 2.0.</p>
+
+<p>The FSF sympathizes with the intent of broad patent retaliation
+clauses in some free software licenses, since the abolition of
+software patents is greatly to be desired. However, we think that
+broad patent retaliation provisions in software licenses are unlikely
+to benefit the community, especially those clauses which can be
+triggered by patent litigation concerning other programs unrelated to
+the software whose license permissions are being terminated. We were
+very cautious in taking steps to incorporate patent retaliation into
+GPLv3, and the section 10, paragraph 3 clause is intended to be
+narrower than patent retaliation clauses in several other well-known
+licenses, notably the Mozilla Public License version 1.1, with respect
+to termination of patent licenses.</p>
+
+<p>If the suggested interpretation of <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"the Program"</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“the Program”</em></ins></span>
applied to the
+section 10, paragraph 3 clause, the result would be a radical
+departure from our consistent past statements and policies concerning
+patent retaliation, which we clearly did not intend.</p>
+
+<p>Other text in GPL version 3 shows the same policy. The patent
+litigation clause in section 10 was added to Draft 3 of GPLv3 as a
+replacement for part of the previous clause 7(b)(5) (in Draft 2).
+Clause 7(b)(5) permitted the placement of two categories of patent
+termination provisions on GPLv3-licensed works:</p>
+
+<blockquote><p>terms that wholly or partially terminate, or allow
+ termination of, permission for use of the material they cover, for a user
+ who files a software patent lawsuit (that is, a lawsuit alleging that
+ some software infringes a patent) not filed in retaliation or defense
+ against the earlier filing of another software patent lawsuit, or in
+ which the allegedly infringing software includes some of the covered
+ material, possibly in combination with other software
+ …</p></blockquote>
+
+<p>Section 7 does not state the GPL's own policy; instead it says how far
+other compatible licenses can go. Thus, that text in section 7 would
+not have established broad patent retaliation; it only would have
+permitted combining GPL-covered code with other licenses that do such
+broad patent retaliation.</p>
+
+<p>Nonetheless, as explained in the Rationale for Draft 3, such broad
+retaliation was criticized because it could apply to software patent
+lawsuits in which the accused software was unrelated to the software
+that was the subject of the license. Seeing that there were no widely
+used licenses with which this would provide compatibility, in <span
class="removed"><del><strong>draft</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Draft</em></ins></span> 3
+we dropped broad patent retaliation from the range of GPL
+compatibility.</p>
+
+<p>We did so by replacing 7(b)(5) with text in section 10, in which we
+kept only what corresponded to the second category. The first
+category therefore reverted to being a GPL-incompatible <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"further
+restriction"</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“further
+restriction”</em></ins></span> in Draft 3, and likewise in GPL version 3
as actually
+published.
+</p>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p><a</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p class="back"><a</em></ins></span>
href="/licenses/gpl-faq.html">Return to the FAQ</a></p>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div></em></ins></span>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div <span
class="removed"><del><strong>id="footer"></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>id="footer" role="contentinfo"></em></ins></span>
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>.
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to <a
href="mailto:licensing@gnu.org"><licensing@gnu.org></a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">
+ <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. -->
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> translations
+of this article.</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+ be under CC BY-ND <span class="removed"><del><strong>3.0
US.</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>4.0.</em></ins></span> Please do NOT change or
remove this
+ without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+ Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+ document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+ document was modified, or published.
+
+ If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+ Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+ years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+ year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+ being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+
+ There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+ Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
+
+<p>Copyright © 2007, <span class="removed"><del><strong>2008,
2014</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2021</em></ins></span> Free Software Foundation,
Inc.</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative</strong></del></span>
+<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative</em></ins></span>
+Commons <span class="removed"><del><strong>Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United
States License</a>.
+</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
License</a>.</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2022/02/15 13:34:08 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong></div></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div><!-- for class="inner", starts
in the banner include --></em></ins></span>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: po/gplv3-the-program.pt-br-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/gplv3-the-program.pt-br-diff.html
diff -N po/gplv3-the-program.pt-br-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/gplv3-the-program.pt-br-diff.html 15 Feb 2022 13:34:08 -0000
1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,326 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/licenses/gplv3-the-program.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: <span
class="removed"><del><strong>1.77</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.96 -->
+<!-- This page is derived from
/server/standards/boilerplate.html</em></ins></span> -->
+<title>What <span class="removed"><del><strong>does "the
Program" mean</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>Does
“The Program” Mean</em></ins></span> in GPLv3?
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/licenses/po/gplv3-the-program.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="article
reduced-width"></em></ins></span>
+<h2>What <span class="removed"><del><strong>does "the Program"
mean</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>Does “The
Program” Mean</em></ins></span> in GPLv3?</h2>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div
class="thin"></div></em></ins></span>
+
+<h3>Summary</h3>
+
+<p>In version 3 of the GNU General Public License (GPLv3), the term
<span class="removed"><del><strong>"the
+Program"</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>”the
+Program”</em></ins></span> means one particular work that is licensed
under GPLv3 and is
+received by a particular licensee from an upstream licensor or
+distributor. The Program is the particular work of software that you
+received in a given instance of GPLv3 licensing, as you received it.</p>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>"The
Program"</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p>“The
Program”</em></ins></span> cannot mean <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"all</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“all</em></ins></span> the works ever licensed
+under <span class="removed"><del><strong>GPLv3";</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>GPLv3”;</em></ins></span> that
interpretation makes no sense, because <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"the
+Program"</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>“the
+Program”</em></ins></span> is singular: those many different programs do
not constitute
+one program.</p>
+
+<p>In particular, this applies to the clause in section 10, paragraph 3
+of GPLv3 which <span
class="removed"><del><strong>states</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>states:</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<blockquote><p>[Y]ou may not initiate litigation (including a
cross-claim or
+ counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any patent claim is
+ infringed by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing
+ the Program or any portion of it.</p></blockquote>
+
+<p>This is a condition that limits the ability of a GPLv3 licensee to
+bring a lawsuit accusing the particular GPLv3-covered software
+received by the licensee of patent infringement. It does not speak to
+the situation in which a party who is a licensee of GPLv3-covered
+program A, but not of unrelated GPLv3-covered program B, initiates
+litigation accusing program B of patent infringement. If the party is
+a licensee of both A and B, that party would potentially lose rights
+to B, but not to A.</p>
+
+<p>Since software patents pose an unjust threat to all software
+developers, all software distributors, and all software users, we
+would abolish them if we could. Indeed, we campaign to do so. But we
+think it would have been self-defeating to make the license conditions
+for any one GPL-covered program go so far as to require a promise
+to never attack any GPL-covered program.</p>
+
+<h3>Further analysis</h3>
+
+<p>GPLv3 defines <span class="removed"><del><strong>"the
Program"</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>“the
Program”</em></ins></span> as follows:</p>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><blockquote><p>"The
Program"</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><blockquote><p>“The
Program”</em></ins></span> refers to any copyrightable work
+ licensed under this License.</p></blockquote>
+
+<p>Some have contended that this definition can be read to mean all
+GPLv3-licensed works, rather than the one particular GPLv3-licensed
+work received by a licensee in a given licensing context. These
+readers have expressed particular concern about the consequences of
+such an interpretation for the new patent provisions of GPLv3,
+especially the patent termination condition found in the third
+paragraph <span class="inserted"><ins><em>of section</em></ins></span> 10 and
the express patent license grant made by upstream
+contributors under the third paragraph of section 11. This overbroad
+reading of <span class="removed"><del><strong>"the
Program"</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>“the
Program”</em></ins></span> is incorrect, and contrary to our intent as
+the drafters of GPLv3.</p>
+
+<p>The word <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"any"</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“any”</em></ins></span> is susceptible to
multiple, subtly different
+shades of meaning in English. In some contexts, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"any"</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“any”</em></ins></span> means
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>"every"</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“every”</em></ins></span> or <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"all";</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“all”;</em></ins></span> in others,
including the definition
+of <span class="removed"><del><strong>"the
Program"</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>“the
Program”</em></ins></span> in GPLv3, it suggests <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"one</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“one</em></ins></span> particular
+instance of, selected from many <span
class="removed"><del><strong>possibilities".</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>possibilities.”</em></ins></span> This
variability has
+to be resolved by the context. This context resolves it, but it requires
+some thought.</p>
+
+<p>We could have worded the definition of <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"the Program"</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“the Program”</em></ins></span>
+differently, such as by using <span class="removed"><del><strong>"a
particular"</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>“a
particular”</em></ins></span> instead of
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>"any",</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“any,”</em></ins></span> but that
would not have eliminated the need for thought.
+The phrase <span class="removed"><del><strong>"a</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“a</em></ins></span> particular work
licensed under this <span
class="removed"><del><strong>License",</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>License,”</em></ins></span>
+regarded in isolation, would not necessarily signify <span
class="removed"><del><strong>*the*</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em><em>the</em></em></ins></span> particular
work
+received by a particular <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"you"</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“you”</em></ins></span> in a particular
act of licensing
+or distribution. Our review of other free software licenses shows that
+they raise similar issues of interpretation, with words of general
+reference used in order to facilitate license reuse.</p>
+
+<p>Given that no choice is so clear that all other candidate meanings
+must be rejected, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"any"</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“any”</em></ins></span> has certain
advantages. It is a somewhat
+more informal and less legalistic usage than the possible
+alternatives, an appropriate register for the developers reading
+and applying the license. Moreover, the usage of <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"any",</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“any,”</em></ins></span> through
+its suggestion of selection out of many qualifying possibilities,
+has the effect of emphasizing the reusability of GPLv3 for
+multiple works of software and in multiple licensing situations.
+The GNU GPL is intended to be used by many developers on their programs
+and that too needs to be clear.</p>
+
+<p>The same use of <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"any"</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“any”</em></ins></span> that has given
rise to interpretive
+concerns under GPLv3 exists in GPLv2, in its corresponding definition.
+Section 0 of GPLv2 states:</p>
+
+<blockquote><p>This License applies to any program or other work
which
+ contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be
+ distributed under the terms of this General Public License. The
+ <span class="removed"><del><strong>"Program",</strong></del></span>
+ <span class="inserted"><ins><em>“Program,”</em></ins></span>
below, refers to any such program or work, and a
+ <span class="removed"><del><strong>"work</strong></del></span>
+ <span class="inserted"><ins><em>“work</em></ins></span> based on the
<span class="removed"><del><strong>Program"</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Program”</em></ins></span> means either the
Program or any
+ derivative work under copyright law …</p></blockquote>
+
+<p>However, it has always been the understanding of the FSF and others in
+the GPL-using community that <span class="removed"><del><strong>"the
Program"</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>“the
Program”</em></ins></span> in GPLv2 means the
+particular GPL-covered work that you receive, before you make any
+possible modifications to it. The definition of <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"the Program"</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“the Program”</em></ins></span> in
+GPLv3 is intended to preserve this meaning.</p>
+
+<p>We can find no clause in GPLv3 in which applying the suggested broad
+interpretation of <span class="removed"><del><strong>"the
Program"</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>“the
Program”</em></ins></span> (and the superset term
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>"covered
work")</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“covered work”)</em></ins></span>
would make sense or have any practical
+significance, consistent with the wording of the clause and its drafting
+history. The patent provisions of GPLv3 are a case in point.</p>
+
+<p>The third paragraph of section 11 states:</p>
+
+<blockquote><p>Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive,
worldwide,
+ royalty-free patent license under the contributor's essential patent
+ claims, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run,
+ modify and propagate the contents of its contributor
+ version.</p></blockquote>
+
+<p>A <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"contributor"</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“contributor”</em></ins></span> is
defined as <span class="removed"><del><strong>"a</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“a</em></ins></span> copyright holder who
+authorizes use under this License of the Program or a work on which the
+Program is <span
class="removed"><del><strong>based."</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>based.”</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>The broad reading of <span class="removed"><del><strong>"the
Program",</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>“the
Program,”</em></ins></span> it has been suggested,
+gives rise to an unreasonably broad patent license grant. The reasoning is
+that, for a given GPLv3 licensee, the set of contributors granting patent
+licenses becomes all GPLv3 licensors of all GPLv3-covered works in the
+world, and not merely licensors of the specific work received by that
+licensee in a particular act of licensing.</p>
+
+<p>Close attention to the wording of the patent license grant, however,
+shows that these concerns are unfounded. In order to exercise the
+permissions of the patent license grant, a GPLv3 licensee must have
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>"the</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“the</em></ins></span> contents of [the
contributor's] contributor <span
class="removed"><del><strong>version"</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>version”</em></ins></span> in his
+possession. If he does, then he is necessarily a recipient of that
+material, licensed to him under GPLv3.</p>
+
+<p>Therefore, contributors are always the actual copyright licensors of
the
+material that is the subject of the patent license grant. The user
+benefiting from the patent license grant has ultimately received the
+material covered by the grant from those contributors. If it were
+otherwise, the patent license grant would be meaningless, because the
+exercise of its permissions is tied to the contributor's <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"contributor
+version".</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“contributor
+version.”</em></ins></span> The contributors and the section 11 patent
licensee stand
+in a direct or indirect distribution relationship. Therefore, section 11,
+paragraph 3 does not require you to grant a patent license to anyone who is
+not also your copyright licensee. (Non-contributor redistributors remain
+subject to applicable implied patent license doctrine and to the special
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>"automatic
extension"</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“automatic
extension”</em></ins></span> provision of section 11, paragraph
6.)</p>
+
+<p>There is similarly no basis for the broad reading of <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"the
+Program"</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>“the
+Program”</em></ins></span> when one considers the patent-related clause
in the third
+paragraph of section 10. This clause provides:</p>
+
+<blockquote><p>[Y]ou may not initiate litigation (including a
cross-claim
+ or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any patent claim is infringed
+ by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the Program or
+ any portion of it.</p></blockquote>
+
+<p>Coupled with the patent license grant of section 11, paragraph 3, and
+the termination clause of section 8, this section 10 clause gives rise
+to a patent termination condition similar in scope to that contained
+in the Apache License version 2.0.</p>
+
+<p>The FSF sympathizes with the intent of broad patent retaliation
+clauses in some free software licenses, since the abolition of
+software patents is greatly to be desired. However, we think that
+broad patent retaliation provisions in software licenses are unlikely
+to benefit the community, especially those clauses which can be
+triggered by patent litigation concerning other programs unrelated to
+the software whose license permissions are being terminated. We were
+very cautious in taking steps to incorporate patent retaliation into
+GPLv3, and the section 10, paragraph 3 clause is intended to be
+narrower than patent retaliation clauses in several other well-known
+licenses, notably the Mozilla Public License version 1.1, with respect
+to termination of patent licenses.</p>
+
+<p>If the suggested interpretation of <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"the Program"</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“the Program”</em></ins></span>
applied to the
+section 10, paragraph 3 clause, the result would be a radical
+departure from our consistent past statements and policies concerning
+patent retaliation, which we clearly did not intend.</p>
+
+<p>Other text in GPL version 3 shows the same policy. The patent
+litigation clause in section 10 was added to Draft 3 of GPLv3 as a
+replacement for part of the previous clause 7(b)(5) (in Draft 2).
+Clause 7(b)(5) permitted the placement of two categories of patent
+termination provisions on GPLv3-licensed works:</p>
+
+<blockquote><p>terms that wholly or partially terminate, or allow
+ termination of, permission for use of the material they cover, for a user
+ who files a software patent lawsuit (that is, a lawsuit alleging that
+ some software infringes a patent) not filed in retaliation or defense
+ against the earlier filing of another software patent lawsuit, or in
+ which the allegedly infringing software includes some of the covered
+ material, possibly in combination with other software
+ …</p></blockquote>
+
+<p>Section 7 does not state the GPL's own policy; instead it says how far
+other compatible licenses can go. Thus, that text in section 7 would
+not have established broad patent retaliation; it only would have
+permitted combining GPL-covered code with other licenses that do such
+broad patent retaliation.</p>
+
+<p>Nonetheless, as explained in the Rationale for Draft 3, such broad
+retaliation was criticized because it could apply to software patent
+lawsuits in which the accused software was unrelated to the software
+that was the subject of the license. Seeing that there were no widely
+used licenses with which this would provide compatibility, in <span
class="removed"><del><strong>draft</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Draft</em></ins></span> 3
+we dropped broad patent retaliation from the range of GPL
+compatibility.</p>
+
+<p>We did so by replacing 7(b)(5) with text in section 10, in which we
+kept only what corresponded to the second category. The first
+category therefore reverted to being a GPL-incompatible <span
class="removed"><del><strong>"further
+restriction"</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“further
+restriction”</em></ins></span> in Draft 3, and likewise in GPL version 3
as actually
+published.
+</p>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p><a</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p class="back"><a</em></ins></span>
href="/licenses/gpl-faq.html">Return to the FAQ</a></p>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div></em></ins></span>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div <span
class="removed"><del><strong>id="footer"></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>id="footer" role="contentinfo"></em></ins></span>
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>.
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to <a
href="mailto:licensing@gnu.org"><licensing@gnu.org></a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">
+ <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. -->
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> translations
+of this article.</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+ be under CC BY-ND <span class="removed"><del><strong>3.0
US.</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>4.0.</em></ins></span> Please do NOT change or
remove this
+ without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+ Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+ document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+ document was modified, or published.
+
+ If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+ Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+ years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+ year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+ being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+
+ There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+ Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
+
+<p>Copyright © 2007, <span class="removed"><del><strong>2008,
2014</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2021</em></ins></span> Free Software Foundation,
Inc.</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative</strong></del></span>
+<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative</em></ins></span>
+Commons <span class="removed"><del><strong>Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United
States License</a>.
+</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
License</a>.</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2022/02/15 13:34:08 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong></div></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div><!-- for class="inner", starts
in the banner include --></em></ins></span>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www/licenses gplv3-the-program.de.html gplv3-th...,
GNUN <=