On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 01:11:54PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > 2.- GULP has a non-DFSG license (this I failed to see). > > So you agree that there is a problem? Yes. I'm going to remove the translation. > > . 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 > > translation). > > Both the original GULP and the translation need to be DFSG-free. I do not agree to this interpretation of the law. I see it this way: "I have A, somebody makes B (a translation) which is considered a new work and can hold different copyright". A is copyrighted X and B *can* be copyrighted Y. Either I misinterpret the law or your interpretation is too strict. As a matter of fact most of the published translation of books probably hold different copyrights than the original's copyrights and to me, thats perfectly legiimate. > > If the original GULP is DFSG-free, anyone can produce a translation in > any language. If the licensing on the existing Spanish translation of > GULP is non-DFSG-free and cannot be changed, a new Spanish translation > could be made from scratch. It can be changed and it's going to, I'm talking with the authors. > As long as the existing Spanish translation > were not plagaiarized, there should be no problem. > > If the original GULP is not DSFG-free, I cannot see any way that the > document or any translation of it could possibly be allowed in main. > The non-freeness of the original document would prevent any translation > from being DFSG-free, as I understand U.S. copyright law. That simply not the way I read either *international* law or US law. Please refer to the Berne treay or WIPO convention. We might need to put this documentation under non-US, I don't know... My legal knowledge only goes so much but I read it as I explained above, please enlighten me if it's otherwise. I consider translations works on their own right (so does Spanish law BTW [1]). In Spanish law, as a matter of fact, the original author can only either concede/deny permission for translation, but the Intellectual Property Rights of the translation belng to the translation. Since Spain has signed both the WIPO treaty and the Berne convention I take it this interpretation of the law is legitimate and we *could* have translations of non-DFSG documents available as DFSG documents *as long as* the translation was authorised by the main author. I would love to see a lawyer (knowledgeable on IP [2]) to enlighten us. Regards Javi [1] http://www.mcu.es/Propiedad_Intelectual/anexos/LeyProp_Intelectual_mod171.PDF [2] Intellectual Property, not the protocol :-)
Attachment:
pgp8JaTTNKPxC.pgp
Description: PGP signature