Jamie Jones wrote: > On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 13:27 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > >>On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 02:30:50PM +1000, Jamie Jones wrote: >> >>>In the event of any license related issues perhaps caused by >>>mis-translation, the Japanese version is the canonical version that must >>>be followed. >> >>Isn't this the case only if someone else than the author translated >>the license? > > > Based on my understanding of Japanese law, the original document being > in Japanese is the one that is legally binding, even if the author makes > an English translation. Other jurisdictions may accept a hypothetical > English translation, but in the event of a dispute, the correct terms > are in the Japanese version. > > IANAL, TINLA. > Regards,
Many of the non-English speaking countries only accept the law terms
written in their official languages. What should I do if I want to
package the software if the license in every files in the source tarball
is non-English? Should I paste the non-English license to debian-legal
for comments? Or should I ask the upstream author to remove the
non-English version and add an English one? What is the proper way?
Thanks,
Ying-Chun Liu
--
PaulLiu(Ying-Chun Liu)
E-mail address:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
