Re: GPL 3 and derivatives
Olive wrote:
> Another problem with the GPL is that it is mentioned that only the
> English language version is valid while some law s(France ?) might
> requires a contract to be written in the local language.
Where does the GPL say only the English-language version is
legally binding?
Neither GPLv2 nor v3 even contains the word "English".
The FSF does not want to approve any translated version of
the GPL as authentic.
"If we were to approve, officially, a translation of the GPL, we would be
giving everyone permission to do whatever the translation says they can do.
If it is a completely accurate translation, that is fine. But if there is an
error in the translation, the results could be a disaster which we could not
fix."
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLTranslations
The creation of a translated version of the GPL text is the making of
a derivative work, and thus requires permission of its copyright
holder, i.e. the FSF itself.
In this FAQ the FSF says they permit people to write translations of
the GPL, and requests that you apply a certain marking to the text.
If you do so, I don't see a reason why the translation would
not be legally binding between the parties that subsequently use
the GPL as their license agreement. Of course the US-centricness
of the GPL's terms could cause problems, but there's a severability
clause so these problems should not be fatal.
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
Arnoud blogt nu ook: http://blog.iusmentis.com/
Reply to: