On Wed, 3 Jul 2002 01:31:59 +0900, Tobias Peters wrote:
> Juergen is of course right insofar that the act of translation
> generates a copyright on the translation.

This is correct.

> If, however, the OPL is a copyleft license (which I don't know,
> have to read it first) in the sense that it restricts the licenses
> of derivative works to be the OPL, then he has to license his
> translation under the OPL, since the translated text is a
> derivative work.

Copyleft actually doesn't matter, here. A translation is a
derivative work, and cannot be published except as licensed. This
means that the translation could possibly be licensed under a
different licence, but that the original work -- or the included
parts of the original work -- still have to be available under the
original licence.

> If the OPL is not a copyleft license, then of course a license
> change could be legal -- like Microsoft's license change when they
> incorporated BSD code into windows NT.

This is actually the main reason I responded. Note that Microsoft
didn't change the licence on the BSD code. They used it in
accordance with the licence. They licensed their complete work under
their own licence, but the code permitted that. All-in-all, I prefer
licences like the MPL because they are very clear on the issue of
derivatives.

-austin
-- Austin Ziegler, austin / halostatue.ca on 2002.07.02 at 13.32.36