[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 01:11:54PM -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.




[2] Intellectual Property, not the protocol :-)

Attachment: pgp8JaTTNKPxC.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: