That page doesn't say it can't be used in court. In fact, the word "court" doesn't even appear on the page.
Do you have an anecdote that isn't a lie?
Do you have an anecdote that isn't a lie?
> The FSF does not approve license translations as officially valid. The reason is that checking them would be difficult and expensive (needing the help of bilingual lawyers in other countries). Even worse, if an error did slip through, the results could be disastrous for the whole free software community. As long as the translations are unofficial, they can't do any legal harm.
> ...
> We give permission to publish translations of GNU licenses into other languages, provided that:
> You label your translation as unofficial to inform people that they do not count legally as substitutes for the authentic version (see below for how to do this).
Are you trying to tell me you can't tell the difference between these statements?
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.
Did you think that an eyewitness account of a murder would be inadmissible because it's not a legal document?
You can use an empty soda can in court. The FSF probably hopes that they are used in court as a starting point.