[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 16:30 +0000, Grant Sewell wrote: > > > > Perhaps MS should then provide "Vista Welsh edition" "Vista Arabic > > edition" etc..etc.. waste even more money.. > > Does anyone know if the various Linux distros provide the GPL in all > languages available to that distro before installation? The FSF do not provide translations of any licences because there is no guarantee that the translated licence will match the original with sufficient precision. A legal term in one language rarely has an identical counterpart in another language. A description of the licence can be translated but the precise legal terms of the GPL remain in English only. Problems like this led to the schism over cdrecord and cdrtools - upstream insisted on a particular interpretation of the GPL that was based on his own legal system (and preconceptions) and disagreed (vociferously) with nearly everyone else when told that he had made a serious mistake. The view within Debian was that his actions made it illegal for Debian to distribute the package. He still insists that he was right all along but the package was removed from Debian before Etch and a new upstream team was created to maintain the fork. If you want to read the gory details, part of the thread is here: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/11/ but the original problem started *much* earlier and it can be hard to pick out the bones of the argument without reading the early stuff too. One part of that problem was that the GPL was interpreted within the legal framework of a different country (and the interpretation used by upstream was itself challenged by residents of the same country). In some ways, it is best to follow GNU advice and attribute (at least some) copyright to the FSF so that there is at least one copyright holder who can enforce the GPL *within the jurisdiction in which it was originally written*. > I remember that Mandrake used to do this but I've not really installed > Mandrake (or Mandriva) since about v10.2 and I can't remember if they > do anymore or not. A translation of the GPL has no legal weight - the FSF say so themselves. The GPL is in English and the only enforceable meaning of the GPL is what is written in the English version. I suspect that Microsoft are fully aware of such issues and would not risk a translated EULA. I also suspect that MS would not be slow to take advantage if a translated GPL opened up holes in the licence in particular localities. The GPL is well known and in very wide usage but such is the nature of law and human nature that despite the clarity of the licence and the vast wealth of documentation on how it actually works, people will still (deliberately or through human error) create their own interpretations of what it actually means for a specific situation. The GPL FAQ itself points out that there are elements of the GPL that are recognised as "grey areas" - despite all the work on GPLv3, some parts of the GPL are still debatable as to the precise meaning in specific circumstances, especially in relation to firmware and the point at which hardware becomes software, whether firmware can be regarded as inviolate and whether a chip can actually be classified as a driver. Translating the GPL only makes that *a lot* worse. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html