Which license(s) for translations?

109 · Post by **109** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 1:23 am

I was wondering, under which licence(s) can we distribute translations of Darwinia? Original text is copyrighted but we are allowed to access it and translate it. What about the translations themselves? In what way can they be accessed and edited? Is it up to the translators or is there a specific policy?

xyzyxx · Post by **xyzyxx** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 1:56 am

I think Introversion will tell you that you can do whatever you want, except hack/modify/distribute the actual executable. Is this correct?

109 · Post by **109** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 6:31 pm

More precisely I am willing to release the translation under the Free Art License, because a translation is likely to evolve, and rather often one may disagree with THIS translation and would rather to write THAT one instead, you see... Thus anyone could modify/improve/continue if it's abandoned/etc. And I wanted to know if I can do that.

xander · Post by **xander** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 8:30 pm

109 wrote:More precisely I am willing to release the translation under the Free Art License, because a translation is likely to evolve, and rather often one may disagree with THIS translation and would rather to write THAT one instead, you see... Thus anyone could modify/improve/continue if it's abandoned/etc. And I wanted to know if I can do that.

I am unfamilier with the Free Art License. Could you post a link? IV have made the files open to review and alteration, so I do not think that they would have any objections to you making and distributing a translation any more than they would object to you making a mod. However, they might get a little irritable if you tried to license your work more restrictively than Darwinia itself. On the other other hand, licensing has little to do with making a translation -- I would suggest that figuring out copyright is more appropriate.

xander

EDIT: Is this the one? If so, I don't see how IV would have much of a problem with it... but it is probably best to wait for official word.

109 · Post by **109** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 3:29 pm

Yes, it's this one

I don't intend at all to restrict my work in any way, I want to make clear for everyone that they could improve the translation if they want to, without restriction. So the Free Art License seemed good to me (it can be applied to all sorts of content, not only art). Well, as I didn't see a mention which explains me what can and what can't be done with the language file, I thought that a license would make it clear and understandable for everyone.

Of course it's up to the official word

xyzyxx · Post by **xyzyxx** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 8:15 pm

If you don't intend to restrict it in any way, what's wrong with Public Domain?

109 · Post by **109** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 8:42 pm

Nothing wrong indeed.

109 · Post by **109** » Mon Feb 27, 2006 5:34 pm

So, I go Public Domain?

xander · Post by **xander** » Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:13 pm

steaveford wrote:I am willing to release the translation under the Free Art License, because a translation is likely to evolve, and rather often may be dis agree with the translation and would rather write that one instead, you see.

This looks a lot like spam.

xander

NeatNit · Post by **NeatNit** » Fri Jun 03, 2011 9:50 am

That's why I didn't respond to it... Will you stop doing that?