[Foundation-l] translation and the GFDL

Fri Jul 6 06:45:49 UTC 2007

It is legally binding as per GFDL not as per US legislation. What you
suggest is the licensing an entire wiki with a non-GFDL license.

We want to deal with one and only one license in a single language for all
the practical purposes. There is no reason why we need to complicate matters
with a translation of GFDL.

      - White Cat

On 7/2/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> White Cat wrote:
>
> >Which country is this a reference of?
> >
> >GFDL license uses very careful wording and any translation will not be
> able
> >to fully reflect it. Translations of GFDL are in breach of GFDL and can
> only
> >be used unofficially as per GFDL itself. This is legally binding.
> >
> >Any court will accept foreign text (though they will let a licensed
> expert
> >or two translate it for them so they have a clue what the license is
> about)
> >but the legal case would be based on the wording as it appears on the
> >English wording of GFDL. That is what we mean by legally binding.
> >
> >In addition any such legal case would most likely be an international
> >copyright dispute at which there are international treaties governing how
> it
> >is to be conducted. No sensible court will dismiss a copyright statement
> in
> >a foreign language.
> >
> >
> It may be legally binding in the United States where English is the de
> facto official language.  (Some people who want legislation to make
> English may even dispute this.)  How far it can be enforced even there
> is another story.  The last time I looked the licence did not specify a
> jurisdiction in which disputes would be resolved.  Let's at least assume
> that there will be no problem in any country where English is one of the
> official languages..
>
> If the licence becomes an issue in a foreign language court it will be
> treated like any other documentary evidence.  Translations will be
> presented, and the two parties may have very different translations.  It
> will be up to the judges, who presumably understand no English, to
> decide which translation is valid.  (To the extent expert qualification
> is a factor, one needs also to assume that both translators are so
> qualified.)  In any event, their ruling is based on the translations.
> If a provision in a contract conflicts with national law that provision
> can be considered ultra vires, and thus not binding.
>
> There is a big difference between a copyright statement in a foreign
> language, and the way in which a country coducts its trials. AFAIK no
> treaty deals with free licences.  The most likely factor for determining
> jurisdiction will then be where the offence took place, and even that is
> debatable.  The case is then subject to the procedural rules in that
> country; there is no such thing as an international copyright court.
>
> Ec
>
> >On 7/2/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>geni wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>An issue on commons and various non english wikis.
> >>>
> >>>First it is only legal to translate the GFDL if you add:
> >>>
> >>>"This is an unofficial translation of the GNU General Public License
> >>>into language. It was not published by the Free Software Foundation,
> >>>and does not legally state the distribution terms for software that
> >>>uses the GNU GPL—only the original English text of the GNU GPL does
> >>>that. However, we hope that this translation will help language
> >>>speakers understand the GNU GPL better."
> >>>
> >>>At the top.
> >>>
> >>>Secondly it needs to be made clear at all times that it is the en
> >>>version that is legally binding.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>That doesn't help in a country which requires that disputes be argued in
> >>the language of that country with contractual texts in that language.
> >>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>