[Foundation-l] translation and the GFDL

[geni]

On 7/6/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> The GFDL and the GPL are written in such a way that they are likely to be
> valid in the jurisdictions of the world. The CC licenses have a text that is
> valid for the jurisdiction it has been written for.

Questionable.

> Consequently, there is
> little need to translate the CC licenses.

Given that other than the US and perhapse Ca versions of CC 3.0 are
free this claim is questionable.

> This is a marked difference and
> this gives rise to a need to translate the GFDL. This license needs to be
> understood by people who speak other languages.
>

Never objected to translateing the GFDL.

> Where you accuse me of "language politics", you have to appreciate that what
> I have written IS about the topic of this thread. What license you prefer is
> personal.


Nope. Not for text.

>Not permitting the translation of the GFDL and making it the
> license for a Wikipedia  in a new language means that you bind the
> contributors to a license that they cannot understand. To me this is not
> ethical.

Translation is allowed. however considerable care must be taken to
make sure that is it clear that the en version of the license is the
binding one.

-- 
geni