Regarding the license requirements of Google Translator, I would say they already have the rights to "use, host, store, reproduce, modif" etc. under the GPL-2, so that should not be a problem. Despite the wording of the agreement, your obligation of ensuring Google is free to do what it wants to with that piece of text is duly fulfilled.
As for the resulting translations, it is undisputed that they constitute the product of a computer algorithm, generated in a completely automated manner. That is not, for the purposes of intellectual property law, an intellectual work or human creation, thus falling outside of the scope of copyright protection. At least this is my understanding of the Berne Convention (1971), the TRIPS Agreement and the national laws of the jurisdiction I am licensed to practice law in. Everyone is welcome to disagree, though. This is just my two cents. Guilherme de Siqueira Pastore gpast...@debian.org On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:23:52PM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > [Petter Reinholdtsen] > > There are no terms of use that I have found available from the > > freetranslation site > > [David Prévot] > > As any other work, unless properly stated compatible with $license, you > > can only only assume “Copyright $stuff, all right reserved” > > Well, there are two arguments against this understanding which I > believe are both valid. First of all, short texts (like single > sentences) are rarely copyrightable, and I only gave the translation > service short texts and got equally short text back, which would most > likely would still not be copyrightable if they started out as not > copyrightable. If the individual texts are not copyrightable, we can > use them and there is no legal issue for us. The combination could be > copyrightable, but only fragments of the original text were submitted > for translation and it would be a judgement call if the amount of > fragments as a whole was copyrightable. > > Second, assuming the original texts were GPL2+ licensed, the > translation service created derived texts which are still GPL2+ > licensed. To distribute GPL2+ derived text they must follow the GPL2 > licence and make the new text GPL2 too. Are you claiming the > translation service violated the GPL? How? If the translation > service didn't violate the GPL, the resulting text would be GPL and > there is no problem for us to use the text. > -- > Happy hacking > Petter Reinholdtsen > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org > Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2fld385myvr....@login2.uio.no > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120322121818.ga27...@pastore.eng.br
