[Foundation-l] translation and the GFDL

[Ray Saintonge]

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.
>>