Re: GPL v2/v3 ?

["Miriam Ruiz" <little.miry@gmail.com>]

2008/3/5, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>:

> Rather, it would be "comunicación pública" instead of "distribución".
>
>  Law translation is a very specialized field; there's a reason that the
>  various translations of the GPL on the FSF website are not legally binding.
>  National laws that redefine existing terms don't help, but if someone
>  extends you a license in English and then sues you in a Spanish court, I
>  can't see any reason why you couldn't argue that "distribution" must be
>  translated as "distribución o comunicación pública" with reference to US
>  law, do you?

I'm not a lawyer, so I really have no clue about how the fuzzy part of
a license is handled exactly. I obviously agree with you, but some
other people might not see it that clear and might decide to interpret
it in a different way. I just thought I should mention it.

Thanks for the answer :)

Miry