[Foundation-l] 2006-2011: Mexican, Argentinian, Brazilian governments distance themselves from freedomdefined 1.0

[Ray Saintonge]

On 03/07/11 11:27 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Birgitte SB<birgitte_sb at yahoo.com>  wrote:
>> ----- Original Message ----
>>> From: Ray Saintonge<saintonge at telus.net>
>>> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List<foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>>> Sent: Sun, March 6, 2011 3:54:11 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2006-2011: Mexican, Argentinian, Brazilian
>>> governments distance themselves from freedomdefined 1.0
>>>
>>> On 03/05/11 8:04 PM, Newyorkbrad wrote:
>>>> I'll ask the same thing here  that I asked in the other thread and no one
>>>> responded to, which is, can  someone please provide some concrete examples
>> of
>>>> how this issue affects  Wikipedia, rather than discuss the disagreement in
>>>> purely abstract and  theoretical terms?  Frankly, I have very little idea
>>>> what the post  below means, which is something I'd like to change as it
>>>> sounds somewhat  important.
>>> Of these three I would find the Mexican situation to be of  greatest
>>> concern. Mexico already has extraordinarily long copyright  terms.  It's
>>> in the ND feature that the potential moral rights problems  lie.  When is
>>> a derivative sufficiently different to be  defamatory.  What is the
>>> thinking behind adding the ND parameter. Is it  some vain attempt to
>>> ensure accuracy, or is there a more insidious  reasoning.
>> ND also rules out translations
> (I always thought this was a weakness of the original ND idea.  There
> were a few long debates within CC about whether to enable translation,
> or to have a separate translation-specific flag, which faded out.)

Translation is an important problem, and it is also key to making 
material available in less developed languages. Linked with moral rights 
it gives too much leeway to those who would claim that a given 
translation is defamatory.

It makes me wonder whether big copyright holders would be willing to 
give free, translation specific licences into the less common 
languages.  They would not want a situation where the free material ends 
up being translated back into the original language, but the laughable 
quality of that kind of effort may be enough to prevent it.

This may not satisfy the purists, but it would move things in the right 
direction.

Ray