Re: #1273 How do we usefully define "excerpt"?

[Simon Josefsson <jas at extundo.com>]

Requiring all translations to carry a note similar to that seem like a
good idea, then.  Perhaps even the URL to the real version.

/Simon

Brian E Carpenter <brc at zurich.ibm.com> writes:

> The usual thing in multilingual documents is for
> them to say "In case of doubt, the original version
> in <language> is definitive."
>
> (Living in Switzerland, with four national languages
> and widespread use of English, this is a well known
> issue to me.)
>
>     Brian
>
> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Harald Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand.no> writes:
>>
>>
>>>Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Based on Simon's and John's comments, I've attempted to create a
>>>>ticket that allows us to focus on the issue of "what is an excerpt"
>>>>while accepting the rough consensus (John is "rough" at the moment)
>>>> that excerpts should be permitted. 
>>>
>>>Note made after sending the previous:
>>>
>>>Based on my experience with how the meaning of words changes when
>>>translated, I'd like to debate whether we consider translated excerpts
>>>to be "verbatim" too - or whether we want to declare explicit
>>>consensus that we want to permit translated excerpts as a separate
>>>resolution.
>>
>>
>> Ouch, this seems potentially complex.
>>
>> Are there, or will there likely be in the near future, one "official"
>> translation of RFCs for a particular language?
>>
>> If not, there are two positions I can see:
>>
>> 1) Have the IETF license (with whatever wording it will have on
>>    verbatim quotes) apply to all translation made by anyone.
>>
>> 2) Let each translator adopt his own license for his work, and make it
>>    clear in the IETF license that contributors accept that
>>    translations of their contribution can be licensed under whatever
>>    license the translator chooses.
>>
>> The conservative choice seem to be 1).  Whether that is intended by
>> RFC 3978 isn't clear right now, at least to me.  RFC 3978 doesn't seem
>> to say anything about the license on translations.  I can't think of
>> other useful positions, can anyone else?
>>
>> However, this may create confusion, if two translations to a language
>> exists, that is subtle different, and is cited somewhere.  Then the
>> claim "RFC x says:" seem incorrect.
>>
>> Perhaps we shouldn't allow verbatim quotes of translated RFCs to say
>> "RFC x says:" at all, but rather force it to be "Z's translation of
>> RFC x says:".  However, I dislike a license that is complex enough to
>> have to go into that kind of subtle details.
>>
>> As you might guess, I don't have a clear opinion on this.
>>
>> I note that if we have a permissive license on entire documents, none
>> of this appear to be a problem.  Anyone can quote the original and
>> translated RFC, however they want, as long as they don't claim
>> something that is false (e.g., "RFC x says that you MUST do this" when
>> it really doesn't say that; a permissive IETF license can include
>> restrictions like that).
>>
>> /Simon
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ipr-wg mailing list
>> Ipr-wg at ietf.org
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
>>

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg