[Foundation-l] translation and the GFDL

[Ray Saintonge]

White Cat wrote:

>It is legally binding as per GFDL not as per US legislation. 
>
US legislation has nothing to do with it; English is quasi-official in 
the United States.  The GFDL is subject to contract law in the country 
in which it is being applied.  Being contrary to public policy is basis 
for declaring a contract null and void.  In some countries insisting on 
that a contract be in a foreign language could easily be contrary to 
public policy.

>What you
>suggest is the licensing an entire wiki with a non-GFDL license.
>
I didn't suggest anything; I only commented on the existing state of things.

>We want to deal with one and only one license in a single language for all
>the practical purposes. There is no reason why we need to complicate matters
>with a translation of GFDL.
>
This is pure chauvinism.  Would you support a suggestion that the next 
version of the GFDL be in adifferent language than English, and be 
enforceable thus around the world?

Ec

>On 7/2/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>  
>
>>White Cat wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Which country is this a reference of?
>>>
>>>GFDL license uses very careful wording and any translation will not be able
>>>      
>>>
>>>to fully reflect it. Translations of GFDL are in breach of GFDL and can only
>>>      
>>>
>>>be used unofficially as per GFDL itself. This is legally binding.
>>>
>>>Any court will accept foreign text (though they will let a licensed expert
>>>      
>>>
>>>or two translate it for them so they have a clue what the license is about)
>>>      
>>>
>>>but the legal case would be based on the wording as it appears on the
>>>English wording of GFDL. That is what we mean by legally binding.
>>>
>>>In addition any such legal case would most likely be an international
>>>copyright dispute at which there are international treaties governing how it
>>>      
>>>
>>>is to be conducted. No sensible court will dismiss a copyright statement in
>>>      
>>>
>>>a foreign language.
>>>      
>>>
>>It may be legally binding in the United States where English is the de
>>facto official language.  (Some people who want legislation to make
>>English may even dispute this.)  How far it can be enforced even there
>>is another story.  The last time I looked the licence did not specify a
>>jurisdiction in which disputes would be resolved.  Let's at least assume
>>that there will be no problem in any country where English is one of the
>>official languages..
>>
>>If the licence becomes an issue in a foreign language court it will be
>>treated like any other documentary evidence.  Translations will be
>>presented, and the two parties may have very different translations.  It
>>will be up to the judges, who presumably understand no English, to
>>decide which translation is valid.  (To the extent expert qualification
>>is a factor, one needs also to assume that both translators are so
>>qualified.)  In any event, their ruling is based on the translations.
>>If a provision in a contract conflicts with national law that provision
>>can be considered ultra vires, and thus not binding.
>>
>>There is a big difference between a copyright statement in a foreign
>>language, and the way in which a country coducts its trials. AFAIK no
>>treaty deals with free licences.  The most likely factor for determining
>>jurisdiction will then be where the offence took place, and even that is
>>debatable.  The case is then subject to the procedural rules in that
>>country; there is no such thing as an international copyright court.
>>