|Subject:||Re: [libreplanet-discuss] The FSF Allows No Derivatives,|
|Date:||Sun, 26 Apr 2015 20:10:47 +1200|
|User-agent:||Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0|
We have enough problems with people misrepresenting other people, especially Mr. Stallman.
Which #%&*ng essay are you gagging to translate? Maybe if you offered to do it, FSF would say yes.
Cultural freedom has a massive sandbox and it can leave works of opinion the hell alone. There's way more important work to do than worry about frivolities and feckless pagentry.
On 04/26/15 19:53, Aaron Wolf wrote:
You can simply have a distinction between "endorsed" or "authorized" translations and other translations. It's reasonable enough to require that the translation be indicated as not an officially accepted translation versus requiring actual permission to publish any translation. Obviously, it is prohibitive to ask someone who is making a derivative of a derivative of a derivative of a translation to ask permission from each person from each stage and have permission denied at any point. Ideas are hampered and progress is limited when we fail to respect cultural freedom, and there are ways to address the other concerns about mis-translation than simply the bludgeon of completely blocking anything that lacks explicit permission. On 04/26/2015 12:43 AM, Giuseppe Molica wrote:I certainly did not say that -- I think someone misunderstood and got it backwards. The problem with translation is that if it is not done right it has the effect of altering the point. A license that permits anyone to translate a work has the effect of permitting anyone to alter its position. If there were a way to permit only correct, clear translation, I would permit that -- but there is no realistic way to assure that a translation is correct. See http://gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-vs-community.html for my views about modification of non-functional works such as art and opinion.I agree with Dr. Stallman. Someone could misunderstand what the author was thinking while writing, or saying, that part he's translating, and this means that in the translated copy that misunderstanding become the author's point of view. And, IMHO, this is unacceptable. This is not a problem with "technical" works, for example manuals, but it is with all the opinion papers, or talkings; words are more powerful then guns, so it's very important to use them correctly. ------------------------------------------ Giuseppe Molica
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|