What should Robert do? (read post first before you vote)

[JuLieN]

Julien, thank you!

No problem. Let me state anyway that I am totally neutral in this matter: I just answer whoever asks questions, and in a general way the moderators only insure that nothing illegal is done on the forum (which for instance would be the case if a link to stolen software was provided, or parts of RE-ed code published. : then we would remove the posts or maybe the thread.)

[IGarcia]

(This for Ed)
What if a Rebel freeware is translated by me to spanish and then released under GPL? Even its possible won't be that against your original intentions?

Regards.

These things happen, for instance:

http://www.mediafire.com/?wzdujgtnnv0#!

I never gave anyone permission to GNU my work.

Some people don't read the copyright notice or simply don't care.

Well, that is what I mean.
Why "GNU" a freeware code after translation and bugfix? Its possible, but at least controversial. Why not to keep original status pretended by original author?



GNU its good, but sometimes its like a monster "eating" all

[velmarin]

Ndie asked to do anything, he can not put GPL to what does not belong.
Never

So that is where you are completely wrong. But if you don't take the word of a lawyer for it, I guess there is little point in discussing it further.

Code: Select all

/*
RobboLito is a UCI chess playing engine by
Yakov Petrovich Golyadkin, Igor Igorovich Igoronov, Roberto Pescatore
copyright: (C) 2009 Yakov Petrovich Golyadkin
date: 92th and 93rd year from Revolution
owners: PUBLICDOMAIN (workers)
dedication: To Vladimir Ilyich

RobboLito is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published
by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License,
or (at your option) any later version.

RobboLito is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
GNU General Public License for more details.

You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this program. If not, see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/.
*/

Dude, this is the statement of Norman,

That puts first
PUBLICDOMAIN

Which is then added
A GPL.

prevailing
PUBLIC DOMAIN.

No need lawyers to see this.

[hgm]

If this is a translation, then the PUBLICDOMAIN part should be taken only as the translation of the original licence. The intellectual property of the translation, however, is owned by the persons who actually made the translations (unless someone can prove he bought it from them). Which are certainly NOT the persons mentioned in the original copyright notice.

So, I still think you are wrong. People can freely use the original version, but copying (part of) the translation would still require the permission of the translators (which is granted up-front under conditions of the GPL, but none other)..

[JuLieN]

If Jose doesn't believe me, then maybe he will believe the GNU foundation themselves:

If a program combines public-domain code with GPL-covered code, can I take the public-domain part and use it as public domain code?

You can do that, if you can figure out which part is the public domain part and separate it from the rest. If code was put in the public domain by its developer, it is in the public domain no matter where it has been.

Source: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en. ... ainWithGPL

[Lavir]

Actually, you are wrong about that. Translating does earn you copyrights. (In so far it is not mindless automated transform, such as a compiler does.) It just does not break the copyrights of the original work. After translation both the original author and the translator own copyrights, and are not allowed to use the work without each other's permission.

Oh, c'mon, don't play the semantics role.

Here we are not talking of a translation as in the case of a literary work where the translator get copyright of the same having the translation a value since it has an artistic component on how it is executed (since the base work is based around this presuppose).

We are talking here of translating captions in a source program that have nothing to do with interpreting the meaning in a certain way in confront to another.

In this case the translation has NO value whatsoever because it is just material execution, there's no "artistic" (and so no proprietary) value on it whatsoever (that is the important part also on the source of a program for what it concerns copyright). Translating for example road signs will not grant you ANY copyright (LOL) and everybody can use those translations as they like.

[Lavir]

The intellectual property of the translation, however, is owned by the persons who actually made the translations

Again, you are correct in the case the translation has intellectual property value, as in the case of translating a poem in another language, for example, but not certainly where the translation has no value whatsoever on that point, i.e. when there's actually no intellectual property to tie to the "interpretation" of the same translation (being the same of "common" value).

If it's just modus operandi, if it's just mannerism (i.e. *everybody* can do the same having the means necessary, in this case knowledge of the other language), there's no intellectual property at all in that.

Nobody can tie intellectual property on translating a common script in a common conference, for example. You can check about it. Other translators can use the work as they please.

[Lavir]

If Jose doesn't believe me, then maybe he will believe the GNU foundation themselves:

If a program combines public-domain code with GPL-covered code, can I take the public-domain part and use it as public domain code?

You can do that, if you can figure out which part is the public domain part and separate it from the rest. If code was put in the public domain by its developer, it is in the public domain no matter where it has been.

Source: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en. ... ainWithGPL

The point in question here is that a translation of COMMON captions can be considered intellectual property, a thing THEY CANNOT.

If you say so while studying law, then you must miss something because I assure you that translating scripts as for example in a conference cannot have copyright tied to them; the script itself can, the translation NOT. I worked on that field so I know (btw if you don't believe me just check what it happens in every service in any news in TV; they can use translators work without no reference whatsoever and without paying nothing whatsoever).

It happens all the time that translation of other people are used there without any problem at all. It is NOT copyrighted material and CANNOT be. The translation as IP has value only if the interpretation of the same has the possibility of tying to the same that IP (and this happens only in the case the base material on which the translation is made is built around that presuppose, i.e. that the interpretation of the same is part of the work; in this case language of the captions has no tie at all to the "value" of the source).

[JuLieN]

If Jose doesn't believe me, then maybe he will believe the GNU foundation themselves:

If a program combines public-domain code with GPL-covered code, can I take the public-domain part and use it as public domain code?

You can do that, if you can figure out which part is the public domain part and separate it from the rest. If code was put in the public domain by its developer, it is in the public domain no matter where it has been.

Source: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en. ... ainWithGPL

The point in question here is that a translation of COMMON captions can be considered intellectual property, a thing THEY CANNOT.

If you say so while studying law, then you must miss something because I assure you that translating scripts as for example in a conference cannot have copyright tied to them; the script itself can, the translation NOT. I worked on that field so I know.

It happens all the time that translation of other people are used there without any problem at all. It is NOT copyrighted material and CANNOT be. The translation as IP has value only if the interpretation of the same has the possibility of tying to the same that IP.

I have no idea what you're talking about Fabio (I have not followed your discussion with HG), nor do I want to enter into too much details, because this thing is taking too much of my time already.

I was just explaining Jose how Robbolito can have parts that are public domain, and parts that are covered with GPL.

[Lavir]

I was just explaining Jose how Robbolito can have parts that are public domain, and parts that are covered with GPL.

Oh, yes, this is indeed true.

I was talking about translating captions in a source.

But you are right on not wanting to enter there, it's a boring discussion anyway.