I'm not a lawyer, so please don't take my recommendations as definitive
answer.
Regarding license translations that only serve as sample text, then I
guess the best thing to do is to remove the sample text.
If you decide to contact a lawyer or someone from the FSF who's able to
answer this
John Darrington writes:
> [ Unknown signature status ]
> The GPL itself is not Free (!)
>
> It's license is:
>
> "Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
> of this license document, but changing it is not allowed."
>
> PLUS some extra
Adonay Felipe Nogueira 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
I **guess** that restriction on modifying the GPL was made because of
the problem of license proliferation that could arise from translations
not accepted as such (that is: not accepted as translations).
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
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
The GPL itself is not Free (!)
It's license is:
"Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed."
PLUS some extra permissions regarding translation which are
given at https://www.gnu.org/licenses/translations.html
Note