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

Re: ldp-es_20002103-7_i386.changes REJECTED

On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 02:38:16PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I must concede that this interpretation appears to be correct under
> Spanish law, though it's inconsistent with my understanding of US law.
> Still, I'm not sure how much that helps us at the international level,
> especially since the original work was copyrighted in a country other
> than Spain.

	Spanish law cannot be broader than the WIPO/Berne convention, so
if it's a valid interpretation it's valid for international law. Note that
a law could be more restrictive than the WIPO/Berne's (I take it from your
interpretation that the US law is) but it cannot be more permissive (sp?).

> One way or another, we need to have confirmation that the translation was
> authorized, and ideally, that the author(s) of the original work have
> signed off on the distribution of the translation under a DFSG-compliant
> license.  Note that you've left open the possibility that our permission


> to distribute the documentation may be *revoked* by a third party at a
> later date, a problem which is not present in any DFSG-compliant license
> that I'm aware of.

	Of course it is. Any author, at any time, as holder of the
copyright of his original work can change the license of his work and
previous work and turn it into a non-DFSG work. Example: packet filtering
code in OpenBSD. Contrary to what people might think, not only can I
chance the license of version X, I can change the license of version X
minus 1, X minus 2, X minus 3...

> I would be interested to know the outcome of your discussions with a
> Spanish lawyer.
	Will keep you informed. Do we have any contact with US lawyers to
clarify this also with respect of US law?


Attachment: pgpmVD3jcQDkK.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: