[Ken Arromdee] > The translator is creating a derivative work (his translation) and > distributing it. This is one of the rights of the copyright holder > and the GPL only gives him permission to do this if he puts his > derivative work under GPL. Since he did not put this derived work > under GPL, the GPL grants him no permission to distribute it, and he > would be in violation of copyright if it wasn't for fair use.
Right. Then I understand your argument. But I fail to understand how you conclude that the translator did not put his derived work under GPL. I on the other hand believe that the translator here implicitly put this derived work under GPL, because not doing it would be in violation of the GPL. I believe assuming people follow the law and the license is a better assumtion to make than to assume that they break the law and the license. I guess this is based on my trust in other people to try to do what is legal and right. Why do you believe the translator in this case is not following the law and the license, and thus do not believe the translator put his derivative work under GPL? -- 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/20120326182304.ge7...@login1.uio.no
