On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 02:00:24PM -0400, Clark C. Evans wrote: > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012, at 09:53 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > In the GPLv3 only case, I think there's also still room to maneuver; > > even though the translation is initially a mechanical translation, once > > done, doesn't this translation then become a new part of the *source*, > > subject to hand editing and revision? If so, I don't think it falls > > under section 6. > I think there's two ways to look at it. If you look at it > through a non-technical lense, the translation is copyrighted > and hence you can't simply slap a GPLv2+ license on it. > If you want to view it technically, I think the current > explanations don't account for copyright on the sequence of > "non copyrightable" chunks; or, if you might randomize your > submissions, that the cached results don't amount to copying > chunks of the translation dictionary used by the service. I think you might want to familiarize yourself with copyright law in more depth. The rules on this stuff are well established, within the "technical" domain that is law. Copyright attaches to creative expressions by human beings. > > US copyright law recognizes that there may be creative expression > > in the selection and organization of factual information. This > > is why a phonebook (or a timezone database!), which has a trivial > > structure of organization and is intended to be exhaustive, is not > > recognized as having a copyright > So, you claim that a translation dictionary isn't copyrightable? I'm not saying that at all. A dictionary may be much more than a collection of facts; there may be selection of terms, creativity in how alternative translations are ordered or decided between, and so forth. However, the act of *using* the translation dictionary to translate something strips away the creative, copyrightable aspects, leaving only the copying of bare information and not any creative expression. So copyright in many cases protects against someone taking your translation dictionary verbatim and publishing copies of it, but someone can still use that dictionary as part of a machine (or human) translation without the dictionary author's copyright attaching to the translation. > I'm not sure this assumption is true -- which words to map to > which words isn't factual, it is a judgement call and creative > interpretation based on context. I don't think that it being a "judgement call" is sufficient to satisfy the requirement for creativity under copyright law, and certainly not if it's a *machine* doing the judging. The mappings certainly are a matter of fact; otherwise there would be no such thing as a wrong translation. So I really think the creativity here is negligible. Certainly when I'm translating something, my effort is spent on finding the *right* words, not the *creative* ones. > Different translators may come up with different word choices. Also, if > you're in Europe, you may also have to comply with database laws, which, > as I understand it, protect against copying of "sweat-of-the-brow" > collections. AIUI that's accurate as far as it goes; but again, what's being done here is not copying a dictionary but using it. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
