Hello Vagrant. Vagrant Cascadian <vagr...@debian.org> writes: > Also, in reviewing the copyright and license headers while packaging for > Debian, this raised a broader question about translating license headers > in files such as doc/guix.de.info: > > > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/guix/-/blob/debian/latest/doc/guix.de.info#L93 > > With my limited german, it is clearly a header to declare the file is > released under the GFDL in some form, but I wonder if that is a good > idea to translate the license headers ... as at least in the US, in > order to ship that file I would maybe need to at least consult with a > lawyer (the US only recognizes English for legal documents), and I > suspect various other countries might need something similar for > arbitrary languages... having to get a lawyer involved kind of kills the > joy of free software and the goal of free distribution... > > This of course touches on some awful issues around language > imperialism. :/ > > […] > For clarity, the US does recognize contracts and whatnot under other > languages, but requires a *certified* translation of the document into > English, which may also require getting legal counsel and in my opinion, > kind of defeats the purpose of free software at that point... as one > cannot freely share it without fear of undue legal burdens... > > At least, that is my entirely not-a-lawyer concern... > > Since this is only shipped in this form whe running "make dist" > ... well, seems relevent for the release process. :) > > live well, > vagrant
We should translate license notices. It is harmless. My German translation of the GFDL header is derived from unofficial translations of older GFDL version 1.2, linked at German Wikipedia and clearly uncertified. IANAL neither, but my defense of the current translated license headers in manual, website and such would be that translated manual, website are clearly marked as a translation in the first paragraph or website header. Clearly the original license applies and in some sentences the translator also has copyright. More clearly, deviation from the license text in translations is an error. The full English license is still part of doc/guix.de.info and other languages. So the English license would likely apply. Generally translation seems not to be a source of dispute in court. I believe I remember in court cases of Software Freedom Conservancy, all parties agreed to use an unofficial German GPL translation. So generally translation seems not to be a source of dispute. But I could not anymore find example cases. It was not the VMWare lawsuit. Regards, Florian
