[Guilherme de Siqueira Pastore] > 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.
Ah, interesting point. So even if one accepted the terms of Google Translator, which I do not, and used it directly instead of <URL: http://freetranslation.mobi/ >, this part would then not be a licensing problem. But it seem irrelevant for this discussion, as I was using <URL: http://freetranslation.mobi/ > and not Google Translator. > As for the resulting translations, it is undisputed that they > constitute the product of a computer algorithm, generated in a > completely automated manner. Actually, it depend on the method used. If the translations are not synthesised but instead copied from a translation database of equivalent string pairs, there could be a human translator behind both the strings in the database and thus also the resulting translation. But most likely there are several matching translations for a given string, so there is also some algorithmic logic involved in picking the right one and your argument might still hold. The paper available from <URL: http://cjlt.dal.ca/vol6_no3/gow.pdf > have more on this issue. > 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. You might be right, or there might be more complex legal arguments involved in determining who got the copyright of a machine translated string. But I believe determining who got the copyright is irrelevant in this case, as long as the license of the original text is not violated and the resulting text will thus also be GPL licensed. The alternative is to claim that the translation service is violating the GPL, which to me seem a bit strange as I fail to understand how it could do it by sharing the resulting string with me. > Everyone is welcome to disagree, though. This is just my two cents. Thank you very much for your input. I do hope Holger and David can explain a bit more why they believe there is a licensing problem here, as I fail to see the problem they try to point out. -- 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/2flobrmc2sz....@login2.uio.no
