[Foundation-l] translation and the GFDL

[White Cat]

The Judge is legally binded to follow anything we demand as per
international treaties.

This isn't a matter of tradition but a matter of law. Berne Convention
dictates that US copyright law has complete jurisdiction in every country
that signed it. What is copyrighted in the US is copyrighted elsewhere based
on US text/law not based on an unofficial translation.

Of course the details of the convention is quite complex. But in a nutshell
the judge is required to accept how I copyright my work as is.

      - White Cat


On 7/6/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hoi,
> Explain that to a judge, a judge who has no requirement to accept what you
> propose. A judge who may be from a juridical tradition quite different
> from
> any of the Anglo Saxon juridical traditions.
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
> On 7/6/07, White Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>