Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives

[Thomas HARDING]

On 18/05/2015 17:23, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> The point isn't that CC-BY or CC-BY-SA are impossible to misrepresent
> nor that the "mark as modified" clause is a foolproof block of
> misrepresentation. The point is that ND itself is not a foolproof block
> of misrepresentation. And since there's little (no?) evidence of it
> being helpful in reality…
>
> There are other alternatives for authenticity. The ideal approach is to
> have an official version, i.e. an *endorsed* version.
[my English expression is one of the worst around the world]

The raising problem in that thread is: FSF is unresponsive regarding
any attempt to endorse any translation nor any derivative work,
such as educational material.

In fact, FSF office lacks of employees. There were only one person
accounted on "propaganda" duty.

A workaround is to join an FSF antenna around the world, such as
FSFEurope.

"It worked for me" at least on a short-end project (collaborative 
translation
of "MS Windows 8 conter-advertising", then SVG authoring of it).

I doubt on efficience on large works such as a two hours  talk
transcription/translation, moreover a book authoring on Free (or non-Free)
software with large samples from several persons such as RMS and Leslig.

Short samples are out of scope regarding copyright and licences. The rant
is: its easier to misrepresent (unvolontary) where only short samples are
allowed, so is it better or worse to un-allow long samples nor translations
with CC-by-ND ? Where is the way to spread the Free Software fundamentals
(and on reviews, such as Open Source vs Free Software)


> It's easy enough for an author to say "this is the official, endorsed
> translation". And any other translation is obviously unendorsed and
> should be viewed with some skepticism.
regarding above, endorsed translations seems to be "phi".

Regards,
TSFH