[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 01:17:10PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Do you mean that it's the *original* work that's under a non-free
> license and the *translators* have havd GPL'ed their translation?

> *IF* that is the case, neither the original nor the translation can be
>  in main, and there's an argument that the translation cannot be
>  distributed at all.

	No. You are wrong, please read my post regarding the Bene Treaty
and WIPO convention (an US copyright law). Please either enlighten us with
more legal background if you have some more (I might be wrong after all :)

> It is very hard to extract the raw facts of the situation from the
> postings that have hit debian-legal. Please summarize facts before
> diving into legal nitpicks.

	The facts are: 

- ldp-es contains the spanish translations (the name in parenthesys) for
"Linux Installation and Getting Started" (LIPP), "Linux User's Guide" 
(GLUP), "Linux Programmer Guide"  (GULP), "Linux Network Administrator's
Guide"  (GARL). These translations have been made by LuCAS [1], now member

- ldp-es has been in the archive for some time (2 years) [2]

- I have submitted a new package fixing some RC bugs 

- Ftp-main has rejected it due to legal concerns (which were not posed 2
years ago and, in any case, are not really true now IMHO)

Current status is:

NAG has a DFSG copyright, GARL has too and includes a note regarding Olaf's
authorisation for translation.

LUG uses the LGPL, the translation (GLUP) does too. There is no note, but
there is an explicit permission for translation in the copyright notice. 

LPG uses a non-DFSG license , the translations (GULP) has translated the
license but not added its own (ouch!). There is an explicit authorisation
(signed digitally) allowing for the translation.

LAGS uses a DFSG copyright, so does the translation (LIPP): There is no
note authorasing the translation.

Several legal issues here:

1.- Only GULP has an authorisation which can be trusted (digitally signed)
regarding translation. There is no need of one for LPG however.

2.- GULP has a non-DFSG license (this I failed to see).

. Are we going to ask for 1)? (this was not the reason why it was
rejected but I want to bring it up on -legal)

. If the GULP translators changed the license to be DFSG-free, would the
translation be allowed into main? (notice that the package was REJECTED due
to the *original* document not being DFSG-free, it said nothing on the

Could we clarify this issues please?



PS: Funny, NAG is now GFDLd, see [3]

[1] http://lucas.hispalinux.es/, translations are at

[2] http://packages.qa.debian.org/l/ldp-es.html

[3] http://www.tldp.org/LDP/nag2/x-087-2-appendix.gpl.html

Attachment: pgplnSrnE6ksQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: