Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by phaemon 1748 days ago
Yes, that is what it says. Not "cannot be used in court". Just that they consider the English version authoritative.

Are you trying to tell me you can't tell the difference between these statements?
1 comments
kbenson 1748 days ago
do not count legally as substitutes for the authentic version isn't the exact same wording, but I don't think it's a leap to go from "this is not a legal document" to "this is not to be used in court" when referring specifically to contracts and licenses.

It's at least no more of a leap than telling someone they're lying when they're paraphrasing, and in a way many people think is fairly accurate.

link
phaemon 1747 days ago
Ok, I didn't realize anyone would really think that only legal documents could be used in court. It seems an utterly bizarre idea to me.

Did you think that an eyewitness account of a murder would be inadmissible because it's not a legal document?

link
pessimizer 1747 days ago
You're being oddly pedantic. The translations aren't authorized by the FSF to be used as the translation of their licenses i.e. they entirely reserve the right to dispute the text of any of them.

You can use an empty soda can in court. The FSF probably hopes that they are used in court as a starting point.

link