Re: legal notice must not translated?

[Sense Hofstede <qense ubuntu com>]

On 28 April 2010 17:42, Johannes Schmid <jhs jsschmid de> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I am not entirely sure if we set up a formal GNOME policy at least I
> couldn't find something in the wiki.
>
> But AFAIK this discussion came up from time to time and it is right that
> you must NOT translate legal notices because the software is licensed
> with the exact wording and not in any translation.
>
> Usually the legal notice (usually GPLv2 or v3) shouldn't be marked for
> translation.
>
> There are several sources of translations for different licenses and
> it's ok to point to those for your personal information but they are not
> and will never replace the original license text.
>
> Regards,
> Johannes
>
> Am Mittwoch, den 28.04.2010, 19:23 +0700 schrieb Andika Triwidada:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I read something we (Indonesian translators) have been done differently than
>> this rule for GNOME:
>>
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N/FAQ#Should_I_translate_legal_notices.3F
>>
>> "Should I translate legal notices?
>>
>> No. You must never do that. The exact wording of the legal notices is
>> very important and a translation not approved by lawyers is very
>> risky. Red Hat is the legal representative and primary sponsor of the
>> Fedora Project and does not have the resources to cross check every
>> single translation. Just leave the original English notice in tact
>> when it covers legal matters."
>>
>> What is GNOME l10n's policy about this?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> --
>> andika
>> _______________________________________________

Does this also apply to licenses like the EU Public License? It is
available in all the languages of the member states and each
translation has got an equal legal meaning.

I.e.: if there is a legally valid translation available of the exact
text, should it be translated in that case?

Regards,
-- 
Sense Hofstede
[ˈsɛn.sə ˈɦɔf.steː.də]