Version 1.1 of the definition has been released. Please help updating it, contribute translations, and help us with the design of logos and buttons to identify free cultural works and licenses!
Editing User:Habj/Translator questions 1.0
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
== Divbox == | == Divbox == | ||
== Summary == | == Summary == | ||
Line 16: | Line 17: | ||
A related question, maybe less relevant but still good for the understanding of the concept, is how free cultural works relate to free software. It seems you include software in the defintion, so the assumption I started out with - that the name was picked to distinguish between free cultural works and free software - seems false. It looks pretty evident from the definition, but I would still be happy for a confirmation. // [[User:Habj|habj]] 03:02, 24 February 2007 (CET) | A related question, maybe less relevant but still good for the understanding of the concept, is how free cultural works relate to free software. It seems you include software in the defintion, so the assumption I started out with - that the name was picked to distinguish between free cultural works and free software - seems false. It looks pretty evident from the definition, but I would still be happy for a confirmation. // [[User:Habj|habj]] 03:02, 24 February 2007 (CET) | ||
== Preamble == | == Preamble == | ||
Line 46: | Line 45: | ||
Will there be hypothetical licenses covered by the definition and are there any examples of situations when that would happen? The translation of "hypothetical" seems obvious, but to be sure I have to ask. //[[User:StefanB|StefanB]] 22:27, 23 February 2007 (CET) | Will there be hypothetical licenses covered by the definition and are there any examples of situations when that would happen? The translation of "hypothetical" seems obvious, but to be sure I have to ask. //[[User:StefanB|StefanB]] 22:27, 23 February 2007 (CET) | ||
== Other == | == Other == | ||
Line 54: | Line 51: | ||
The original contains a link to English Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License license] (piped to display the text "free license") i the section "Preamble". This strikes me as funny since this wiki contains a page [[licenses]]; it is linked in the summary, piped as "free licenses". If the text will contain links to English Wikipedia - what do we do with those when translating the text? Do we keep the link to enwiki, do we replace it with a link to the corresponding article on svwiki? If this article does not exist, do we just leave the link out? The first alternative means we provide English speaking but not Swedish speaking information, and the translation exists mainly for those who are not good in English. (In this case, there is not corresponding article but I think the problem should be discussed on a more general level.) An article on svwiki might be informative and contain roughly the same info as the one on enwiki, but maybe not - so the second alternative is a probably loss in information, and maybe even adding bad information. The last alternative is a simple loss of information. | The original contains a link to English Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License license] (piped to display the text "free license") i the section "Preamble". This strikes me as funny since this wiki contains a page [[licenses]]; it is linked in the summary, piped as "free licenses". If the text will contain links to English Wikipedia - what do we do with those when translating the text? Do we keep the link to enwiki, do we replace it with a link to the corresponding article on svwiki? If this article does not exist, do we just leave the link out? The first alternative means we provide English speaking but not Swedish speaking information, and the translation exists mainly for those who are not good in English. (In this case, there is not corresponding article but I think the problem should be discussed on a more general level.) An article on svwiki might be informative and contain roughly the same info as the one on enwiki, but maybe not - so the second alternative is a probably loss in information, and maybe even adding bad information. The last alternative is a simple loss of information. | ||
A related question: are we as translators free to add links to Wikipedia articles to explain concepts in the text that they feel needs explaining? What concepts needs an explanation might well vary between languages. In this case, one translator added a link to the article [http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft copyleft] on Swedish Wikipedia, in the section "Permissible restrictions" | A related question: are we as translators free to add links to Wikipedia articles to explain concepts in the text that they feel needs explaining? What concepts needs an explanation might well vary between languages. In this case, one translator added a link to the article [http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft copyleft] on Swedish Wikipedia, in the section "Permissible restrictions". If we should not add links in this way - could concepts like copyleft be explained on this wiki? // [[User:Habj|habj]] 02:41, 24 February 2007 (CET) | ||
If we should not add links in this way - could concepts like copyleft be explained on this wiki? // [[User:Habj|habj]] 02:41, 24 | |||