[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] po/hu.po: Hungarian translation for the GTK+

From: Laszlo Ersek
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] po/hu.po: Hungarian translation for the GTK+ interface
Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 10:26:24 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130329 Thunderbird/17.0.5

On 05/07/13 10:01, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 07/05/2013 09:22, Laszlo Ersek ha scritto:
>>>> diff --git a/po/hu.po b/po/hu.po
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 0000000..340709f
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/po/hu.po
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
>>>> +# Hungarian translation for QEMU.
>>>> +# This file is put in the public domain.
>>> Same issue as with the recent Turkish translation here FWIW.
>> Yes, I recalled that, but the existing .po files come with the same
>> license (I checked), including tr.po.
>> What was the problem again with public domain contributions?
> The problem is that in some legislations (including most civil law
> countries, i.e. most of Europe) you cannot legally put something in the
> public domain.
> You can only waive your copyright, and there is more than just
> copyright.  You cannot waive your moral rights for example, which
> include the right to the integrity of the work and to preserve it for
> alternation---interesting concept in open source.  Moral rights are even
> perpetual in many jurisdictions.  You need a contract/license that says
> that you won't enforce moral rights, for example the CC0 license.
> Interesting, there is no local port of CC0.  In my non-lawyer eyes
> that's a pity, but there must be a reason for that. :)

I'm aware of this to some extent. For example, as far as I know, the GPL
itself is questionable in Hungary, where as you say you can't waive your
copyright (your moral rights) *ever*, only your related commercial
rights (can't recall the exact term), and even for the latter you need a
signed contract.

(One might ponder if releasing something in Hungary under the GPL is
legally valid (ie. not that it'd be a violation or anything, just null
and void -- ineffective). You can't irrevocably promise not to go after
your moral rights.)

I suspected that something like this was in the background, but what I
didn't understand was: why single out the public domain, as the GPL
itself is in the exact same bucket, generally speaking.

IANAL of course.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]