[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 20:04 +0000, Julian Hall wrote: > Neil Williams wrote: > > 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. > > > If this is true of licensing across the board then why do DVD > distributors bother giving the copyright notice in several languages? > > Surely the same argument that 'languages do not contain direct > translations of what is meant' occurs here too? 1. A copyright notice is a fraction of the length of a licence, being largely restricted to a declaration with a supporting statement or two. 2. Copyright is replete with international treaties and agreements, negotiated by large, complex bureaucracies over decades. 3. Even with all this paraphernalia, disagreements and misinterpretations still occur and long, expensive, international court battles ensue. Who is going to fund all that for the GPL? It's hard enough getting large complex bureaucracies like the EU to agree *anything* in more than one language. Even when the agreement is signed in all the component languages, the actual implementation differs from one legal system to another. Now maybe MS *can* afford to translate their EULA - I didn't think they did but I suppose they may do - I think it would be safe to assume that such translations would be done by a local Microsoft office and that in the case of disagreement, the Redmond version would overrule the translation. -- 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