I would be curious if that is how Japanese courts would view it. They may not consider that a valid way. Or they might. But different jurisdictions vary.

You need to think hard and understand that it is irreversible before you publish your content under certain licenses.

My problem with this type of gate keeping is that machine learning does open up translations that are accurate to the masses. It is quaint having a real human do your translations though. Kind of like having a real human drive your car or do your housework. Not everyone can afford that luxury. But, on the other hand, having a singular organization own the training data and the model and not publishing the model itself is where the gatekeeping continues.

There are some discussion if the whole concept of "license" fits under Japanese law. I think it's understood as "a contract to allow the usage of otherwise restricted work by copyright etc under conditions"

But I'm not a lawyer so I don't know and in real business, they casually use the word "license" in Japan. But in my opinion, everything is contract under Japanese law.

Yeah - I know in US law some terms are simply unenforceable and void. Much of the FOSS movement is designed around US contract law. There are issues with some US licenses being enforceable under other legal regimes - I was chatting a decade or so ago with a Russian who understood the...GPL(? I don't remember exactly) to be invalid in Russia and so it had to be bundled in some fashion to be usable.

Or to put another way, a license (a contract) is a tuple (terms, jurisdiction), and the juridical evaluation process will take both into account.

> Once your work is published under Creative Commons license, it is irreversible.

I am not sure how it is under Japanese law, but in some countries a creator cannot be stripped of his rights by agreeing to a license. Even without that there is often a way to rescind any gift given in good faith if the receipients behavior warrants it.

In case of Japanese copyright law, that is 著作人格権(moral rights). A right that protect his work isn't used in a way the author don't want it.

It includes right to be not published(like a personal letter intended to be secret), attribution, right to be identical preservation(modifying in a way author don't intended, like adding extra arm to 3-arms monster)

You see, these rights are covered in Creative Commons, by agreeing and publishing his work under Creative Commons, the author explicitly promised he won't use these exclusive rights against the users.

If he didn't agree on the spirit of Creative Commons, why did he contributed Mozilla in CC license for 20 years? Did he intended to taint free software by incompatible non-free work?

This is exactly what happens if you ignore the free software definition explained by RMS.