[Foundation-l] translation and the GFDL

[Ray Saintonge]

geni wrote:

>On 7/6/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>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.
>>    
>>
>Actually no. For people reading the summery there what they think is a
>license. For lawyers and people who read the legal text there will be
>a slightly different license. So that comes out as 2 * the number of
>languages the licence has been translated into. Throw in all the
>variants and the situation with CC is far more complex.
>
I'm not saying that CC will improve the situation.  Trying to adapt it 
to the laws of different countries could easily lead to more 
jurisdiction shopping.

>>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. :)
>>    
>>
>The majority of our edits are.
>
>Please go and play language politics somewhere else. At the moment it
>would not be legal to use translations of tr.pedia articles on any
>other project.
>
I disagree with White Cat's view, but I'm not suggesting that he is 
playing language politics.  He expresses a fairly widespread view that I 
happen to disagree with.  How is that language politics?

I know of no rule that forbids us from translating turkish language 
articles.  What do you know about Turkish law?

Ec