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

[Aaron Wolf]

Josh,

I think any court would judge that "official translation" definitely
implies endorsement. "Official" means related to holding an office,
being the owner, the person in position of authority. It is the same as
saying "authorized".

Furthermore, there's also clause 3a1B: "indicate if You modified the
Licensed Material and retain an indication of any previous modifications;"

and clause 3a3: "If requested by the Licensor, You must remove any of
the information required by Section 3(a)(1)(A) to the extent reasonably
practicable."

In other words, RMS could say "I do not approve of this translation, so
not only do I want all endorsements or implications of endorsements
removed, I want my *name* removed from this." And refusing to do so
would be a violation of the license.

Thus, it is *certainly* a violation of the license to misrepresent RMS,
i.e. to put words in his mouth and claim that they are his exact words.

The result is that CC-BY-SA allows someone to translate RMS and change
"free software" to the equivalent of "open source" but *not* to state
that this is the unmodified authentic writings of RMS. RMS retains the
power to have his name disassociated entirely.

Cheers,
Aaron

On 05/29/2015 09:52 AM, Joshua Gay wrote:
> On 05/29/2015 11:08 AM, Robinson Tryon wrote:
>> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Joshua Gay <jgay@fsf.org> wrote:
>>> On 05/27/2015 10:16 AM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>>>> Yoni,
>>>>
>>>> I and others made very clear and practical points about why your
>>>> decision to move away from CC-BY-SA is not good. Namely, you are
>>>> incorrect that it allows people to misrepresent you.
>>>
>>> This is still not true. I will repeat my example with further detail
>>> added in to address your previous reply.
>>>
>>> I translate RMS's essays. I switch all instances where it says "free
>>> software" to say "open source" and adjust sentences accordingly. I then
>>> state on the cover of my book: "This is the official and definitive
>>> translation of Richard Stallman's work".
>>
>> Hmmmm.
>>
>>>  While I might be in compliance
>>> with a CC BY-SA license, my translation would still clearly be a
>>> misrepresentation of Stallman and his work.
>>
>> I'm no lawyer, but I can't possibly imagine that one would be in
>> compliance with CC-BY-SA if one claimed that. Here's a bit from the
>> summary of 4.0:
>>
>> "Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the
>> license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any
>> reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor
>> endorses you or your use."
>> https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
>>
>> And from the horse's mouth itself (emphasis mine):
>>
>> "No endorsement. Nothing in this Public License constitutes or may be
>> construed as permission to assert or imply that You are, or that Your
>> use of the Licensed Material is, connected with, or sponsored,
>> endorsed, OR GRANTED OFFICIAL STATUS by, the Licensor or others
>> designated to receive attribution as provided in Section
>> 3(a)(1)(A)(i)."
>> https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode
> 
> What I wrote certainly does not state that Richard Stallman endorses the
> translation. It just says it is an official and definitive translation.
> Who says it is official is obviously me and not the original author. If
> I called it an authorized translation or a translation endorsed by the
> author, then that would seem like a violation of the license.
> 
> 

-- 
Aaron Wolf
co-founder, Snowdrift.coop
music teacher, wolftune.com