Sven Luther wrote: > On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 08:55:08AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > >>Sven Luther wrote: >> >>>On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 10:11:38AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: >>> >>> >>>>On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 07:48:17PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Moreover, we need these licenses to be recognized as open-source by >>>>> Debian and other authorities before even considering to use them. >>>> >>>>The problem you are going to end up with for this, though, is that there is >>>>no authoritative English version of the licences. The translation of the >>> >>>Bah, whatever, the first and only copy of this licence i have seen was in >>>english, so what is the problem ? >> >>Yes, there is an English translation. That translation is >>non-authoritative, and specifically states that "the French version is >>authoritative". Therefore, it is irrelevant if the English version is a >>Free license, because that version is non-binding. We would need to >>specifically check the authoritative French version. > > That means that for a non-english speaker, each licence is non-free ?
Not at all. It means that an analysis of the English version that found it to be Free, while useful, would not not sufficient to say that a package under the license is Free, because the license specifically states the following: > 11.5. LANGUAGE > > The Agreement is drafted in both French and English. In the event of a > conflict as regards construction, the French version shall be deemed > authentic. This means that we do need a French speaker (or preferably several) to confirm that the English analysis also applies to the French version of the license. > Seriously, you are only hiding behind the words, nothing is stopping you from > making an analysis of the english version. And as none here is a official > translator recognized by legal system, even if we were to declare the > translation accurate, this won't help. > > The fact to declare the french version authoritative is only there to be a > backup if this even comes to court over a difference of interpretation, it is > not to let you declare the english version as unusable. "a backup if this even comes to court" is another way of saying "if it ever turns out to matter what the license says". We need to confirm that the authoritative version of the license is Free, and that requires understanding what the license actually says. As described below, that will not be excessively difficult; we just need a few French speakers to confirm that the analysis of the English version also applies to the French version. >>>>licence vetting process is what I've heard it is (trusting the drafting >>>>lawyer's assertion that it's OK) you might be OK there, but I doubt >>>>debian-legal is going to be able to discuss a licence without an >>>>authoritative English version to work from. >>> >>>So, everybody here should learn french :) >>> >>>No, seriously, we have enough french speaking developers that this should not >>>be a problem, and since there is an english translation (and as said, the >>>first link i found was a 9 page or so english PDF), this should be no major >>>problem. Also, i believe that this is one of the usefull input you could >>>provide to the comittee developing those licences, don't you think. >> >>I think that what we could do is this: get a couple of developers who >>speak both French and English to read the authoritative French version >>and the English version, and tell us "The translation is accurate". > > What about reading and comenting the licences in questions, and have a french > speaking dd (well, at least me, not sure if other would care about > debian-legal kind of analysis) check your assumpted reading with the french > version. That's actually exactly what I meant by... >>debian-legal could then review the English version, and if there are any >>ambiguities in wording, ask those developers for clarifications based on >>the French version. It's not ideal, but it would work. ...this. - Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
