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

Re: ldp-es_20002103-7_i386.changes REJECTED

Scripsit Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <jfs@computer.org>

> > Their own copyright? What about the "without prejudice [...]" part?

> I understand that it says that the original copyright is not modified
> regardless of the copyright used by the translation. Once the author has
> granted permission (a right he cannot lose) the translator can do whatever
> he likes with the translated work (since he can change the copyright).

That's exactly what the "without prejudice" says is *not* the
case. To copy a translation, you need explicit permission from the
author of the original work as well as from the translator.

Normally, when a classic literary work, such as a novel, is
translated, the author makes an agreement with the foreign publisher
that - in return for a royalty fee - allows the publisher to have the
work translated as well as (explicitly) to print and sell copies of
the translation. However, if the publisher wants afterwards to use
the translation in other ways (such as printing more copies than
allowed in the original agreement), he needs to conduct new
negotiations with the original author, probably involving the payment
of more royalties. *In parallel* to this, the publisher must secure
the translator's permission to use his work.

Thus, if the original authors for some documentation have conditions
on copying their work that are not DFSG-free, those conditions apply
to the translation too. Unless the original authors have *explicitly*
said otherwise. This means that if the translator has tried to apply
the unmodified GPL to his translation, GPL#7 kicks in and effectively
makes the translation non-distributable.

Henning Makholm                      "They are trying to prove a hypothesis,
                             they are down here gathering data every season,
                       they're publishing results in peer-reviewed journals.
                     They're wrong, I think, but they are still scientists."

Reply to: