[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/licenses gplv3-the-program.es.html po/gplv3...
|
From: |
GNUN |
|
Subject: |
www/licenses gplv3-the-program.es.html po/gplv3... |
|
Date: |
Sat, 18 Dec 2021 06:38:36 -0500 (EST) |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: GNUN <gnun> 21/12/18 06:38:36
Modified files:
licenses : gplv3-the-program.es.html
licenses/po : gplv3-the-program.es-en.html
gplv3-the-program.es.po
Log message:
Automatic update by GNUnited Nations.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/licenses/gplv3-the-program.es.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.3&r2=1.4
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/licenses/po/gplv3-the-program.es-en.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.3&r2=1.4
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/licenses/po/gplv3-the-program.es.po?cvsroot=www&r1=1.8&r2=1.9
Patches:
Index: gplv3-the-program.es.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/licenses/gplv3-the-program.es.html,v
retrieving revision 1.3
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -u -b -r1.3 -r1.4
--- gplv3-the-program.es.html 18 Dec 2021 08:13:01 -0000 1.3
+++ gplv3-the-program.es.html 18 Dec 2021 11:38:35 -0000 1.4
@@ -10,7 +10,9 @@
<!--#include virtual="/licenses/po/gplv3-the-program.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.es.html" -->
+<div class="article reduced-width">
<h2>¿Qué significa «el Programa» en la GPLv3?</h2>
+<div class="thin"></div>
<h3>Resumen</h3>
@@ -274,7 +276,8 @@
que en la GPLv3 tal como se publicó.
</p>
-<p><a href="/licenses/gpl-faq.html">Volver a las preguntas frecuentes</a></p>
+<p class="back"><a href="/licenses/gpl-faq.html">Volver a las preguntas
frecuentes</a></p>
+</div>
<div class="translators-notes">
@@ -330,7 +333,7 @@
There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
-<p>Copyright © 2007, 2008, 2014, 2021 Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p>
+<p>Copyright © 2007, 2021 Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p>
<p>Esta página está bajo licencia <a rel="license"
href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/deed.es_ES";>Creative
@@ -345,7 +348,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Ãltima actualización:
-$Date: 2021/12/18 08:13:01 $
+$Date: 2021/12/18 11:38:35 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: po/gplv3-the-program.es-en.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/licenses/po/gplv3-the-program.es-en.html,v
retrieving revision 1.3
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -u -b -r1.3 -r1.4
--- po/gplv3-the-program.es-en.html 18 Dec 2021 08:13:01 -0000 1.3
+++ po/gplv3-the-program.es-en.html 18 Dec 2021 11:38:36 -0000 1.4
@@ -1,23 +1,25 @@
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 -->
<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
-<title>What does "the Program" mean in GPLv3?
+<title>What Does “The Program” Mean in GPLv3?
- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
<!--#include virtual="/licenses/po/gplv3-the-program.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
-<h2>What does "the Program" mean in GPLv3?</h2>
+<div class="article reduced-width">
+<h2>What Does “The Program” Mean in GPLv3?</h2>
+<div class="thin"></div>
<h3>Summary</h3>
-<p>In version 3 of the GNU General Public License (GPLv3), the term "the
-Program" means one particular work that is licensed under GPLv3 and is
+<p>In version 3 of the GNU General Public License (GPLv3), the term ”the
+Program” 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>
-<p>"The Program" cannot mean "all the works ever licensed
-under GPLv3"; that interpretation makes no sense, because "the
-Program" is singular: those many different programs do not constitute
+<p>“The Program” cannot mean “all the works ever licensed
+under GPLv3”; that interpretation makes no sense, because “the
+Program” 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
@@ -46,9 +48,9 @@
<h3>Further analysis</h3>
-<p>GPLv3 defines "the Program" as follows:</p>
+<p>GPLv3 defines “the Program” as follows:</p>
-<blockquote><p>"The Program" refers to any copyrightable work
+<blockquote><p>“The Program” refers to any copyrightable work
licensed under this License.</p></blockquote>
<p>Some have contended that this definition can be read to mean all
@@ -59,58 +61,58 @@
especially the patent termination condition found in the third
paragraph of section 10 and the express patent license grant made by upstream
contributors under the third paragraph of section 11. This overbroad
-reading of "the Program" is incorrect, and contrary to our intent as
+reading of “the Program” is incorrect, and contrary to our intent
as
the drafters of GPLv3.</p>
-<p>The word "any" is susceptible to multiple, subtly different
-shades of meaning in English. In some contexts, "any" means
-"every" or "all"; in others, including the definition
-of "the Program" in GPLv3, it suggests "one particular
-instance of, selected from many possibilities". This variability has
+<p>The word “any” is susceptible to multiple, subtly different
+shades of meaning in English. In some contexts, “any” means
+“every” or “all”; in others, including the definition
+of “the Program” in GPLv3, it suggests “one particular
+instance of, selected from many possibilities.” 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 "the Program"
-differently, such as by using "a particular" instead of
-"any", but that would not have eliminated the need for thought.
-The phrase "a particular work licensed under this License",
+<p>We could have worded the definition of “the Program”
+differently, such as by using “a particular” instead of
+“any,” but that would not have eliminated the need for thought.
+The phrase “a particular work licensed under this License,”
regarded in isolation, would not necessarily signify <em>the</em> particular
work
-received by a particular "you" in a particular act of licensing
+received by a particular “you” 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, "any" has certain advantages. It is a somewhat
+must be rejected, “any” 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 "any", through
+and applying the license. Moreover, the usage of “any,” 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 "any" that has given rise to interpretive
+<p>The same use of “any” 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
- "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a
- "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any
+ “Program,” below, refers to any such program or work, and a
+ “work based on the Program” 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 "the Program" in GPLv2 means the
+the GPL-using community that “the Program” in GPLv2 means the
particular GPL-covered work that you receive, before you make any
-possible modifications to it. The definition of "the Program" in
+possible modifications to it. The definition of “the Program” 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 "the Program" (and the superset term
-"covered work") would make sense or have any practical
+interpretation of “the Program” (and the superset term
+“covered work”) 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>
@@ -122,11 +124,11 @@
modify and propagate the contents of its contributor
version.</p></blockquote>
-<p>A "contributor" is defined as "a copyright holder who
+<p>A “contributor” is defined as “a copyright holder who
authorizes use under this License of the Program or a work on which the
-Program is based."</p>
+Program is based.”</p>
-<p>The broad reading of "the Program", it has been suggested,
+<p>The broad reading of “the Program,” 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
@@ -136,7 +138,7 @@
<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
-"the contents of [the contributor's] contributor version" in his
+“the contents of [the contributor's] contributor version” in his
possession. If he does, then he is necessarily a recipient of that
material, licensed to him under GPLv3.</p>
@@ -145,16 +147,16 @@
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 "contributor
-version". The contributors and the section 11 patent licensee stand
+exercise of its permissions is tied to the contributor's “contributor
+version.” 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
-"automatic extension" provision of section 11, paragraph 6.)</p>
+“automatic extension” provision of section 11, paragraph 6.)</p>
-<p>There is similarly no basis for the broad reading of "the
-Program" when one considers the patent-related clause in the third
+<p>There is similarly no basis for the broad reading of “the
+Program” 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
@@ -180,7 +182,7 @@
licenses, notably the Mozilla Public License version 1.1, with respect
to termination of patent licenses.</p>
-<p>If the suggested interpretation of "the Program" applied to the
+<p>If the suggested interpretation of “the Program” 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>
@@ -216,12 +218,13 @@
<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 "further
-restriction" in Draft 3, and likewise in GPL version 3 as actually
+category therefore reverted to being a GPL-incompatible “further
+restriction” in Draft 3, and likewise in GPL version 3 as actually
published.
</p>
-<p><a href="/licenses/gpl-faq.html">Return to the FAQ</a></p>
+<p class="back"><a href="/licenses/gpl-faq.html">Return to the FAQ</a></p>
+</div>
</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
@@ -270,7 +273,7 @@
There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
-<p>Copyright © 2007, 2008, 2014, 2021 Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p>
+<p>Copyright © 2007, 2021 Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p>
<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/";>Creative
@@ -280,7 +283,7 @@
<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2021/12/18 08:13:01 $
+$Date: 2021/12/18 11:38:36 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
Index: po/gplv3-the-program.es.po
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/licenses/po/gplv3-the-program.es.po,v
retrieving revision 1.8
retrieving revision 1.9
diff -u -b -r1.8 -r1.9