Dave Thomas <Dave / PragmaticProgrammer.com> wrote in message news:<m2n0v0wan2.fsf / zip.local.thomases.com>...
> juergen.katins / epost.de (Juergen Katins) writes:
> 
> > Kent Dahl <kentda / stud.ntnu.no> wrote in message news:<3CE2CA05.E553A3B0 / stud.ntnu.no>...
> > > Something completely unrelated: I was abit surprised by the license on
> > > the translation. Does the OPL allow this transition to a GNU Free
> > > Documentation License?
> > 
> > I am no license expert but I understand the OPL as "Do whatever you
> > want with this document". You could even redistribute it as part of
> > a non free book. Even more the translation of a book creates an own
> > new copyright owned by the translator (who must however have the
> > license to translate).
> 
> I want to go on record as objecting to this. I don't know about the
> legality of changing the license: it strikes me as being wrong, in
> that by doing so the original license holder has potentially lost
> rights.  My interpretation of the OPL is that it works like the GPL:
> the original owner gets to set the licensing terms
> 
>      The Open Publication works may be reproduced and distributed in
>      whole or in part, in any medium physical or electronic, provided
>      that the terms of this license are adhered to, and that this
>      license or an incorporation of it by reference (with any options
>      elected by the author(s) and/or publisher) is displayed in the
>      reproduction.
> 
> The OPL does not say "do what you want with this material," any more
> than the GPL does.
> 
> I have asked privately for the license to be changed to the OPL, now
> I'm asking publicly.
> 
> At the same time I'm also concerned about the change of copyright
> holder.  By changing the copyright holder, we're basically losing
> control of the license (as has just happened).
> 
> Say I take the Linux kernel source and ROT13 the variable names. Could
> I then remove Linus's copyright and make the code my own?  I suspect
> not. I'm surprised that the act of translating allows someone to do
> that with a book.
> 
> If someone can definitively say that this is acceptable practice, then
> clearly Hr Katins can do what he wants. However, if there is any
> doubt, then I'd really like the copyright to remain unchanged as well.

I just contacted a friend of mine at Penguin.  In order to release a
translation, the translators would have to come to some type of
agreement with you.  This type of licensing is a major part of
publishing income:

http://www.publaw.com/licensing.html

She noted that the copyright of the translation does belong to the
translator; however, this is usually ceded to the original rights
holder as part of the licensing agreement.  She also noted that the
translation cannot be released without some type of agreement with
original rights holder.

From what I can tell there is probably a case here.  I hope this is a
missunderstanding, and that satisfactory agreement is reached.

~ Patrick