[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: ldp-es_20002103-7_i386.changes REJECTED

On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 11:41:29AM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 01:30:37PM -0600, David Starner wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 07:06:46PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> > > Iff the author authorised a 
> > > translation, the translation *can* be published under a different
> > > license (DFSG free in the case) since the copyright holder is not the
> > > original author, it's the translator.
> > 
> > The translator and the author share copyright under copyright law. So

	Also, for the record read the US Copyright law (which differs from
others) [1], note that "derivative works" include translations:

103. Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works


(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the
material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the
preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any
exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is
independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration,
ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting

	May I remark the phrase "The copyright in such work is
independent of (...)  any copyright protection in the preexisting

	Unfortunately, this might not be the same in all countries
(specially if they have not signed the Berne convention and/or the WIPO
copyright treaty [2].

	Also from the WIPO treaty [3]

"Article 2

(3) Translations, adaptations, arrangements of music and other alterations
of a literary or artistic work shall be protected as original works without
prejudice to the copyright in the original work."

This means that they have their own copyright but do not change the
original work's copyright. Of course (article 8 of the WIPO treaty) the
original authors have a right to make and authorise translations.

I cannot, of course, demostrate that the translations were authorised. Nor
is there a document (in all of them) stating that fact for all documents.
And in the case there is, it's not digitally signed so it's value is moot.

If we are going to be nitpicky about this, take into account that *for each
translation* in Debian (including manpages, GNOME/KDE help documentation or
whatever) we *need* a document stating that a given translation is
authorised *even* if the document is DFSG-free (GPLed or whatever) since
the copyright *cannot* remove the "right of translation" from any given

My question is ¿are we doing that for each and every document translated in
Debian? ¿Do we have unrefutable proof that the translation was authorised?

Please don't ask for a package what you don't do for others. Either do it
for all or don't.


[1]  http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/92chap1.html
[2] http://www.wipo.int/treaties/ip/wct/index.html
[3] Online at http://www.wipo.int/clea/docs/en/wo/wo033en.htm

Attachment: pgpQwfv2o5Ax2.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: