[Foundation-l] translation and the GFDL

Fri Jul 6 08:38:50 UTC 2007

Hoi,
Using that argument, it would make sense to ditch the GFDL and use one of
the Creative Commons licenses. For users there is one license, for lawyers
there is a legal document that is worded for their different legal systems.
This way you deal with the license in one language, the language of your
legal system, wherever that is.

When you suggest that we need not complicate matters with a translation of
the license we use, and by posting on this list you make it plain that you
can read English.. Last time I looked, the overwhelming majority of our
projects were not in English. :)

Thanks,
    GerardM

On 7/6/07, White Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>