[Foundation-l] translation and the GFDL

[Eagle 101]

Hey guys, we have a new lawyer, lets go ask him :)

Eagle 101

On 7/6/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> GerardM wrote:
>
> >Hoi,
> >
> >On 7/6/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On 7/6/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>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.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>CC does that all the time.
> >>
> >>
> >You are wrong. What the CC does is write the notions of what a particular
> >license is in language that is valid in that jurisdiction. This is
> distinct
> >from what you find in GPL and GFDL where one size is to fit all. The idea
> is
> >to be true to what the license expresses. The idea is that the license in
> >essence is the same where ever.
> >
> The difficulty with CC3.0, of course, relates to moral rights.  As long
> as the jurisdiction for an alleged infringement were the place where the
> uploader lived the situation would be relatively easy.  If, however, the
> jurisdiction is, as some courts have determined, where the downloader
> lives there can be a lot of problems.  English common-law countries tend
> to have a more relaxed attitude toward moral rights.  It is
> problematical when a person in an English common-law country acts in a
> manner consistent with his country's laws suddenly finds himself charged
> under the more rigid French or Swedish law because a person in that
> country happened to download material that violated moral rights.  There
> is no extradition for copyright violations, but it could make a person's
> future travel plans difficult.
>
> Ec
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>