导语：2024年“9·30 国际翻译日”如期而至，这是译者的专属节日。受版权法启发，本年度节日主题为：“Translation, an art worth protecting", 强调翻译值得按照《伯尔尼公约》受到尊重与受法律保护。

开放原子开源基金会的“源译识”开源公益翻译项目以“在共译中凝聚开源共识”为宗旨，对开源相关许可证、域内外司法判决、专业书籍、重点报告等内容进行专业可信的翻译。我们也诚邀广大开源开发者、开源爱好者及翻译爱好者踊跃参与到“源译识”项目中，一起共建可信的多语种开源资料库，促进开源法律全球化交流，为开源社区的稳健发展与国际接轨做出贡献！欢迎您通过translation@openatom.io与我们联系！

值此国际翻译日到来之际，特此分享“源译识”项目出品的2023年中国最高人民法院涉及GPLv2的判决译文（由郭雪雯、薛杨洁翻译，特邀邓雨亭博士审校）及对本判决的介绍与专业评述（特邀来自中国的陶冶律师、周丹丹律师，以及来自德国的Till Jaeger律师）。最高法在本案中认为涉GPL开源协议争议的软件权利人即使未开源，亦有权针对侵权行为维权，此审判思路与2021年德国卡尔斯鲁厄高级地区法院审判的另一案件类似。

01. 案件评述

 

陶冶 | 国浩律师（南京）事务所 合伙人律师

（请在“开放原子”微信视频号中观看）

 

周丹丹 | 集佳律师事务所合伙人律师

本案最大的争议在于原告要求保护的涉案权利软件是以开源软件为基础经二次开发形成的衍生软件，涉及原告的涉案权利软件是否应当根据开源协议开源的问题，也涉及如果原告未按开源协议开源而构成违约或侵权，是否影响原告向未经许可使用涉案权利软件的被告主张权利的问题。

在2022年9月，江苏省南京市中级人民法院作出的“南京未来诉江苏蜻蜓软件著作权纠纷案”（案号（2021）苏01民初3229号）判决中，法院认定该案原告违反了GPLV2协议要求提供源代码的义务，构成违约，导致开源软件授权人与原告之间的授权自动解除，原告基于GPL协议获得的许可终止，原告对GPL开源代码的使用是无权使用。基于此，法院认为原告起诉被告行为构成侵权，首先自身应当遵守开源协议，保护原告的不当行为带来的利益，不符合公平、诚信原则，最终对其要求被告承担侵权责任的诉讼请求未予支持。此案判决作出后，还是引起了广泛的关注和巨大的争议，该案给出的司法观点导向是，对于未遵守开源协议义务的权利人，法院不支持其对侵权人的维权主张。

最高人民法院在本案中对该争议给予了明确的纠正和厘清。最高院在本案判决中明确认定，本案系针对涉案软件的著作权侵权纠纷，而非合同纠纷。尽管涉案软件涉及GPLv2协议这一许可合同，但在开源软件权利人并非本案当事人情形下，基于合同相对性原则，本案不宜对涉案软件是否全部或部分受GPLv2协议约束、原告是否违反GPLv2协议、以及原告是否因此需承担任何违约或侵权责任等问题进行审理。即便假定原告因违反GPLv2协议导致涉案软件存在权利瑕疵，该假定瑕疵亦不影响原告在本案中针对被诉行为寻求侵权救济。最高人民法院在本案中的司法观点遵循了著作权理论上关于“侵权演绎作品”的基本法理。开源软件和以开源软件为基础二次开发的新软件之间的关系，是原作品与演绎作品之前的关系，虽然涉案软件可能基于开源软件进行创作且未获得原开源软件权利人许可，但涉案软件是否可受到著作权保护取决于其是否有独创性部分，只要涉案软件中有原告独创性部分，则原告对该独创性部分就依法享有著作权，被告未经许可使用原告有独创性的软件代码的行为即构成著作权侵权。

本案充分厘清了软件开发者自身是否违反开源协议和是否享有软件著作权，是两个相对独立的法律问题，软件开发者基于其独创性贡献向侵权方主张权利不应被不合理剥夺或限制。同时该案判决也明确指出，本案最终认定被诉行为构成侵权，并不表明原告将来在潜在的违约和/或侵权之诉中可予承担违约和/或侵权责任。由此可见，本案判决充分平衡了开源软件权利人及使用者两方面的利益，即保障作为开源使用者基于其独创性代码正当维权的权利，也引导开源软件使用者自觉遵守开源规则，承担违反开源协议可能的违约或侵权责任，只有各方共同维护开源生态的良好秩序，才更有利于我国计算机行业的健康稳定发展。

 

OpenWRT, the GPL and the Supreme People's Court of China

By Dr. Till Jaeger，JBB Rechtsanwälte律所 合伙人律师

原文请见：https://www.ifross.org/?q=node/1676 

 

The Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China had to decide the case of Wangjing vs. Yibang, et al, (2021) Supreme Court-IP Tribunal-Civil Case-Final Judgment No.51, in which the licensing of OpenWRT as part of the software under the GPL-2.0 was invoked as a defense against the claims of the manufacturer in a copyright infringement case.

The facts of the case
Wangjing Technology developed a proprietary system software, "OfficeTen", designed for network operation in the communications industry. This software consisted of two components: the underlying system software based on OpenWRT (free software under the GPL-2.0) and the upper layer functional software, which Wangjing claimed was an "independent and separate program" from the OpenWRT system. Wangjing registered the copyright of OfficeTen and invested significant resources in its development. According to Article 7 of the PRC Regulations on Software Protection, a copyright registration certificate is refutable evidence of authorship of a work [The "Regulations on Computer Software Protection" is a special law under Art. 64 of the Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China].

Former Wangjing employees, now working for Qi'ao Company, were accused of illegally downloading the source code of "OfficeTen" and creating a derivative version with only minor modifications. Qi'ao then collaborated with Yibang Company, which distributed the infringing software.

Both Yibang and Wangjing had applied for a public contract from China Telecom Guangdong. Yibang eventually won the contract. Wangjing received information that their software had been used and launched a technical investigation.

Wangjing filed a criminal complaint, and the Suzhou Public Security Bureau (police) launched an investigation. The Bureau engaged the Shanghai Oriental Computer Forensic Institute to examine the devices from the two manufacturers for software similarities.

Several reports from the Shanghai Oriental Computer Forensic Institute found that both the compiled software and the source code of the devices showed extensive similarities.
Parallel to the criminal proceedings, Wanjing has initiated civil proceedings in which it has sued Yibang, Qi'ao and the employees involved, demanding compensation, an injunction and a public apology.

Legal Issues

Based on the parties' pleadings and the facts of the case, the Court identified the key issues in the case as:
(1) whether Wangjing owns the software copyright of the software in question;
(2) whether Yibang and Qi'ao jointly infringed;
(3) whether the defense of non-infringement raised by Yibang and Qi'ao based on the GPL-2.0 is established; and
(4) if infringement is established, whether the civil liability determined by the court is appropriate.

(1) Copyright Ownership

Wangjing Technology claimed ownership of the "OfficeTen" software, which they had registered with the National Copyright Administration. Based on the results of the forensic investigation and the fact that 1,694 files are not licensed as open source software, as well as the fact that OfficeTen has been registered by the National Copyright Administration, the court concluded that Wangjing is the copyright holder.

(2) Infringement by Qi’ao and Yibang

The core allegation was that Qi'ao copied and modified Wangjing's software after gaining unauthorized access to its source code. The court found substantial similarity between Wangjing's software and the allegedly infringing software, as evidenced by forensic reports. Yibang's role in distributing the infringing software further implicated it in the infringement. The court found that Qi'ao and Yibang jointly committed copyright infringement by copying, modifying, and distributing Wangjing's software without authorization.

(3) Defense of non-infringement based on the GPL-2.0

Qi'ao and Yibang argued that because Wangjing's software was based on OpenWRT (licensed under the GPL-2.0), it was subject to open source requirements, and therefore their use of the software did not constitute copyright infringement. Wangjing argued that the upper layer functional software was a separate, independent creation that was not subject to the GPL-2.0 license.

The court rejected the defendants' GPL-2.0 defense for several reasons:

This is a copyright infringement case regarding OfficeTen. It is not a contractual dispute. The Court stated:

“Although the Software at issue is subject to a license agreement, i.e. the GPL-2.0 agreement, based on the principle of the privity of contract, it is not appropriate to determine all in present case whether the Software at issue is wholly or partially subject to the GPL-2.0 agreement, whether Wangjing Company violates the GPL-2.0 agreement and whether Wangjing Company shall bear any liability for breach of contract or infringement, while the right holder of the OpenWRT system software is not a party to this case.”

The copyright holder of OpenWRT was not a party to the case, making it inappropriate to address potential GPL-2.0 violations in that context. The Court stated:

“while the right holder of the OpenWRT system software is not a party to this case, it is also difficult to find out the facts related to the GPL-2.0 agreement as follows: whether the Software at issue is subject to the GPL-2.0 agreement, this issue involves the following considerations whether the underlying system software is subject to the GPL-2.0 agreement, whether the upper layer functional software constitutes an “independent and separate program” under the GPL-2.0 agreement, and how to define the technical measures of isolation, the mechanism of communication and the semantics of communication between the two software, and common understanding and common practices about the copyleft effects of the GPL-2.0 agreement.”
   
No evidence was provided that Wangjing renounced its copyright under the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China in OfficeTen through the GPL-2.0. Assuming that Wangjing violated the GPL-2.0 and its right to OfficeTen was defective, such defective right shall not affect its right to seek remedies in the present case against Defendants' infringement. The Court stated:

“For the reasons stated above, in an infringement dispute where the software has not yet been open-sourced, the copyright owner of the software believes that the software is not subject to the GPLv2 agreement, and the accused infringer raises the non-infringement defense based on the GPLv2 agreement, the question of whether the software developer per se has violated the GPLv2 agreement and the question of whether he or she enjoys the software copyright are relatively independent legal issues, and it is inappropriate to confuse the two issues, so as not to unreasonably deprive or restrict the software developer’s rights based on his or her original contributions in accordance with the law. However, it should be noted that the final ruling in present case, which finds the accused acts to constitute infringement and upholds part of Wangjing Company’s claims, does not exempt Wangjing Company from his liability in potential lawsuits of either breach of contract or infringement in the future.”

Decision

•    The court denied the appeal by Qi’ao and Yibang, affirming the original judgment.
•    Qi’ao and Yibang were held jointly liable for compensating Wangjing Technology with CNY 500,000 (around 70,961 USD) and required to publish a notice on Yibang’s website to eliminate the negative effects of the infringement. Interestingly, the court took into account the fact that significant parts of OfficeTen were based on OpenWRT when determining the amount of damages: “Since the OpenWRT system software is already a relatively mature communication control software, with contributions from numerous developers and a substantial amount of written code, the court of first instance has already taken this into consideration when looking at the adjudicated amounts, which also aligns with the aforementioned principle of proportionality.”
•    Qi’ao and Yibang were also ordered to bear the trial fees of CNY 8,800 (around 1,249 USD) for the second instance.
•    The  judgment is final and binding.

Additional remarks

The Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe (Judgment of November 13, 2020, Ref. 6 U 60/20) came to a similar conclusion in the Wordpress Theme case, in which the GPL-2.0 was also asserted in defense. Here, too, a distinction is made depending on whether the owner of an (alleged) derivative work copyright has licensed the derivative work under the GPL-2.0. The mere possibility of a violation of the copyleft is not enough to defend against copyright claims. The enforcement of the GPL-2.0 is the responsibility of the licensors and cannot be enforced by users declaring the software to be “GPL-licensed”. The copyleft effect does not automatically result in GPL licensing; instead, this must be actively undertaken by the author of a derivative work.

We would like to thank the OpenAtom Foundation for translating the judgment into English within the Contransus Project so that those who do not know Chinese can understand it. The translation is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

 

 

更多资料请见：