[Foundation-l] translation and the GFDL

[GerardM]

Hoi,
"In essence" is my interpretation of what is done. I am not a lawyer but I
do know that some quality expertise is going in the wording and of the text
that explain the license for a specific legal system.

I am happy to learn that you know how it fails, I am sure that you have
informed the Creative Commons about this.

As to CeCILL is it a recognised Free license ? And I am sorry to be dim it
is the first time that I have heard of it .. for those as clueless as I am
.. http://www.cecill.info/index.en.html .. this is what I read there "Free
Software licenses conforming to French law."

So not being a lawyer, I am still not impressed because the difference
between this and the CC licenses is that the CC licenses are meant for EVERY
country not just France.

Thanks,
     GerardM

PS Kelly, does this make me a hater of everything French ??? :)

On 7/6/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/6/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I.E it trys to adapt to the laws of different countries. It fails btw.
>
> >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.
>
> "in essence" is not useful from a legal POV. It just results in a
> mess. If you want an example of a good translated license see CeCILL.
>
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>