[Foundation-l] translation and the GFDL

[White Cat]

This isn't a proposal to ban non-English translations. This is a proposal to
make it so that it is clearly explained that only English one is legally
binding and everything else to be a close approximation (translation) of it.

    - White Cat

On 7/6/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>