4 ms·

What for? What's the relevance of the FSF here? Well, if you really want an anecdote with the FSF. I happen to have one :D The court used the French GPL trans

What for? What's the relevance of the FSF here? Well, if you really want an anecdote with the FSF. I happen to have one :D The court used the French GPL translation from the FSF. The very translations saying that they are not official translations and cannot be used in court. Well, the FSF doesn't get to decide what's admissible in court. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/translations.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/translations.en.html

phaemon 5y ago
That page doesn't say it can't be used in court. In fact, the word "court" doesn't even appear on the page. Do you have an anecdote that isn't a lie?
- simiones 5y ago
  The page is very clear that it only considers the English document to constitute the real contract, and all translations as helpers, not as legal documents: > The FSF does not approve license translations as officially valid. The reason is that checking them would be difficult and expensive (needing the help of bilingual lawyers in other countries). Even worse, if an error did slip through, the results could be disastrous for the whole free software community. As long as the translations are unofficial, they can't do any legal harm. > ... > We give permission to publish translations of GNU licenses into other languages, provided that: > You label your translation as unofficial to inform people that they do not count legally as substitutes for the authentic version (see below for how to do this).
  - phaemon 5y ago
    Yes, that is what it says. Not "cannot be used in court". Just that they consider the English version authoritative. Are you trying to tell me you can't tell the difference between these statements?
    - kbenson 5y ago
      do not count legally as substitutes for the authentic version isn't the exact same wording, but I don't think it's a leap to go from "this is not a legal document" to "this is not to be used in court" when referring specifically to contracts and licenses. It's at least no more of a leap than telling someone they're lying when they're paraphrasing, and in a way many people think is fairly accurate.
      - phaemon 5y ago
        Ok, I didn't realize anyone would really think that only legal documents could be used in court. It seems an utterly bizarre idea to me. Did you think that an eyewitness account of a murder would be inadmissible because it's not a legal document?
        pessimizer 5y ago
        You're being oddly pedantic. The translations aren't authorized by the FSF to be used as the translation of their licenses i.e. they entirely reserve the right to dispute the text of any of them. You can use an empty soda can in court. The FSF probably hopes that they are used in court as a starting point.
xxpor 5y ago
That's not that unusual. If you have a contract written in something other than English and it ended up in a US court, the court would probably look at this translation and essentially be like, well, even though it says that it was translated by a non-party to this case and there's no reason to believe it's intentionally mistranslated, so good enough. Especially if the parties to the dispute didn't have any objections.

phaemon 5y ago

That page doesn't say it can't be used in court. In fact, the word "court" doesn't even appear on the page. Do you have an anecdote that isn't a lie?

simiones 5y ago
The page is very clear that it only considers the English document to constitute the real contract, and all translations as helpers, not as legal documents: > The FSF does not approve license translations as officially valid. The reason is that checking them would be difficult and expensive (needing the help of bilingual lawyers in other countries). Even worse, if an error did slip through, the results could be disastrous for the whole free software community. As long as the translations are unofficial, they can't do any legal harm. > ... > We give permission to publish translations of GNU licenses into other languages, provided that: > You label your translation as unofficial to inform people that they do not count legally as substitutes for the authentic version (see below for how to do this).
- phaemon 5y ago
  Yes, that is what it says. Not "cannot be used in court". Just that they consider the English version authoritative. Are you trying to tell me you can't tell the difference between these statements?
  - kbenson 5y ago
    do not count legally as substitutes for the authentic version isn't the exact same wording, but I don't think it's a leap to go from "this is not a legal document" to "this is not to be used in court" when referring specifically to contracts and licenses. It's at least no more of a leap than telling someone they're lying when they're paraphrasing, and in a way many people think is fairly accurate.
    - phaemon 5y ago
      Ok, I didn't realize anyone would really think that only legal documents could be used in court. It seems an utterly bizarre idea to me. Did you think that an eyewitness account of a murder would be inadmissible because it's not a legal document?
      - pessimizer 5y ago
        You're being oddly pedantic. The translations aren't authorized by the FSF to be used as the translation of their licenses i.e. they entirely reserve the right to dispute the text of any of them. You can use an empty soda can in court. The FSF probably hopes that they are used in court as a starting point.

xxpor 5y ago

That's not that unusual. If you have a contract written in something other than English and it ended up in a US court, the court would probably look at this translation and essentially be like, well, even though it says that it was translated by a non-party to this case and there's no reason to believe it's intentionally mistranslated, so good enough. Especially if the parties to the dispute didn't have any objections.