On Sun, Mar 25, 2012, at 01:36 PM, Ben Finney wrote: > > I think this is a false assumption, the service itself required > > creativity to implement, and the specific choice of word associations > > in specific contexts is not algorithmic nor factual, but individual > > calls by translation submitters who have granted the translation > > service license to use their work. > > By the same argument, the GCC copyright holders can claim to hold > copyright in every program compiled using GCC, and the copyright holders > in PHP can claim copyright in every web page that program renders. I > think that's exactly as unsound as the argument you present.
I don't think your comparison is sound. A compiler is going from one synthetic anguage with well defined semantics to another. A human language translation isn't simmilar at all. If you insist on assuming that the output is indeed the result of a mechanical compilation and if you presume the final result is GPLv2+, then the process must comply with Clause #6 of the GPLv3. This requires the corresponding *source code* needed to _generate_ the work from its source code be compatibly licensed Hence, if you want to compare this process to the GCC case... the translator itself must be released under the GPLv3. I think presuming the translation output isn't copyrighted is wishful thinking, valuing *your* copyrights over the copyrights of others. For example, if the chunks arn't copyrightable, and assembling chunks is just an automated process... why is the source document copyrightable, it's just a series of uncopyrighted facts (e.g. words). If the sequence matters, then you're not just sending chunks to the service, you're sending the entire document. I'm not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice. Best, Clark -- 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/1332769110.8480.140661054187485.22ed5...@webmail.messagingengine.com
