On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 10:30:15AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > 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.
I will be glade to take that role. > > 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. Yeah, but you are somehow implying that the translation is unthrustable, which i believe it is not. Just that in case of conflict, the french version is authoritative, but this is mostly for small nuance conflicts that may arise. > >>>>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... Ok. It is just that for me to claim the translation is accurate is a bit not very usefull. I doubt that i am a better translator than the one used for doing the english translation, so i would thrust him more than me. But following the arguments and checking them with the french original, that is ok. > >>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. But let's do so in another thread maybe. Friendly, Sven Luther
