On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 10:11:52 -0500, "Perry E. Metzger"
<perry@piermont.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.  

Wait a cotton pickin' minute.  Aren't we talking about this one line:

	 Copyright (C) 1994-2003 
	The NetBSD Foundation, Inc. 
	   ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.  

What license?  That's a notice.  It's not required; all it does is clarify
to whom the copyright belongs, and start the 95-year clock.  

Copyright isn't a license; for better or worse it's a right.  The holder
of that right gets to decide what to do with it.  NetBSD generally grants
a license on its source code, and the only reason it can do so is that it
"owns" something to start with: the copyright.  

The only question asked is, Should that notice be translated when the
document is translated?  And the only (rational) basis for answering the
question is, would translating the notice enhance, diminish, or leave
unchanged the right to which it refers?  

I'm quite sure I've read that a copyright notice, in English, with a "(C)"
or symbol, is internationally recognized (to the extent that such things
are).  I don't know whether translating it would have any legal effect,
but it seems to me, given that it's superfluous by modern standards, it
can't have much effect one way or the other.  

Finally, what's really at stake?  We should be so lucky that our website
becomes so valuable it's worth stealing.  I understand the legacy of The
Lawsuit makes everyone very prickly about legalities, but this is only the
documentation we're talking about.  It's valuable, but we can only wish it
becomes worth arguing its international economic value.  

--jkl