On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 10:23:54AM -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> 
> Andy R <quadreverb@yahoo.com> writes:
> > Is there any reason why not to translate the
> > copyright?
> 
> 1) The original is the legal license, not the translation.
> 2) Unless the translator is a specialist in translating legal
>    paperwork, they'll get terminology wrong.
> 3) The original is the legal license, not the translation.

Your restating makes me think you consider it very important, but
I don't really understand what you _mean_.  The copyright is not
strictly a license, is it?  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, and what he
doesn't, plus what rights the owners have, and what they give away.

Wrong terminology can certainly be a problem, but the writers/coders
in our community, who produce original texts and source code (including
their copyright/license/disclaimers notes), are most likely not law
experts in their language/country, either, so it is very likely that
some of our current practices can be wrong from the very beginning.

Writers and translators of what is in htdocs are not generally emp-
loyees of The NetBSD Foundation, but give it not only the copyright
but also full rights reservation on material they contribute.  As
long as one does not claim the copyright over a translation from an
original he doesn't own, I cannot see a problem.

-- 
	Pappires

... Qui habet aurem audiat quid Spiritus dicat ecclesiis.