Back in 2015 the OSI adopted an additional "International" license category, as explained in this license-discuss posting by Mike Milinkovich: http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/2015-June/019234.html. The assumption at the time (at least to my recollection) seemed to be that licenses in this category would not have an official English language version, though this is actually not clear from Mike's formulation of the category apart from, arguably, the certified English translation requirement. The LiLiQ license trio was subsequently approved by the OSI and placed in this category.
A couple of people have suggested that EUPL, currently placed in "Uncategorized", should be classified as "International". This seems right, even though EUPL has an official English language version. I suggest we continue to think of the International category as encompassing licenses "targeting specific languages and jurisdictions", to use Mike's phrasing from 2015, rather than the typical approach we see in open source licensing of having a single English-language text that is largely perceived by the community, correctly or not, as being jurisdiction-neutral in design or orientation. We should think of "specific languages and jurisdictions" as meaning "specific languages not limited solely to English"; an International license might have an English language version as well as a version in one or more other languages, or it might not have an official English version at all. Given this understanding, EUPL 1.2 as well as CeCILL 2.1 should both be reclassified as "International". Richard _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
