Paulo Alexandre Pinto Pires <p@ppires.org> writes:
> Technically,  we cannot translate a "copyright", since it doesn't
> make sense to translate one's _right_ to copy.  However,  we  can
> translate a copyright notice or statement.

But this isn't a copyright notice -- it is a license -- so the FAQ you
read doesn't apply.

>> > Besides, the most important point in
>> > any license or copyright information is (IMO) to make it perfectly
>> > clear to the user/reader/victim what rights he has,
>> 
>> No. That's not true at all. The law is not about making things
>> perfectly clear to the reader. The law is about making things legally
>> enforceable by lawyers. The two have no relationship whatsoever.
>
> A  license  is  not the law.

I see you still do not understand. Go back and re-read what I wrote
explaining why it is that it is legally irrelevant whether or not the
license is understandable to non-specialists.

>> The official grant of rights is the version written in English by
>> lawyers. (Yes, it was not written by programmers.) It should not be
>> tampered with without advice from lawyers, and translation (other than
>> unofficial translation) is a form of tampering.
>
> What  grant of what rights on what?

The grant of a license to the public to use the copyrighted material
subject to certain constraints.

If you do not understand this implicitly, you have no business
even thinking about trying to translate the document.

-- 
Perry E. Metzger		perry@piermont.com