On Mon, Mar 26, 2012, at 09:53 AM, Steve Langasek wrote: > Not in the least. Releasing something under GPLv2+ means the > recipient gets to *choose* which version of the GPL they're > complying with, including when they create derivative works.
I've not studied GPLv2 at all, I was using GPLv3 since I'm at least a bit familar with it. That said, I don't think you could take the output of the translation and pretend that it is licensed via the GPLv3. I presume GPLv2 is similar. > 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. > 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 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. 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. > So when you choose what bits to feed into the machine and how to assemble > the output, the new copyright that attaches is yours, assuming that the > choosing and assembling is non-trivially creative; the machine doesn't > hold any copyright. While it may be true that the translation process itself doesn't create a derived work, I believe the incorporation of a large corpus of individual creative choices found in the translation mapping do make the resulting translation a derived work. If not, we'd have some strange force of nature which magically aligned peoples minds to consider the same words to have the same meanings ;) I'm not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. Best, Clark -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1332784824.2833.140661054298621.41648...@webmail.messagingengine.com
