Adonay Felipe Nogueira <adf...@openmailbox.org> writes: > [ Unknown signature status ] > If I'm not mistaken, translations of the GNU GPL are not legally binding > if they are presented by themselves. > > One must note that when the translation text is preceded by a section > written in the license's original language that instructs the reader to > take the original one as valid, then the project does become under that > license. > > Distinction must also be made between the license and its notice below > copyright notice. As far as my limited knowledge goes, the license > notice of the GNU GPL can be translated. > > However, translating license notices for other licenses that don't > implement short notices is risky because you would be translating the > license itself. > > Examples of licenses that allow short license notices: Almost all > licenses from the GNU project, Apache License. > > After the license notice, of course, the project can take the time and > space to write more elaborated text on what are the rights and > obligations of the user, as long as the writer warns that this > explanation isn't legally binding too, and that the reader must read the > original license to know more.
Does this even apply when the license serves as a sample text? The source we are talking about: http://dbacl.sourceforge.net/ | https://github.com/krig/dbacl https://github.com/krig/dbacl/blob/master/doc/japanese.txt (might not represent what I have in the tarball) and sample6 I deleted is this one: https://github.com/krig/dbacl/blob/master/doc/sample6.txt --