On 2018-12-07 3:06 a.m., Matija Šuklje wrote:
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.
Just for clarification, is this more about language or
jurisdiction (or both)?
Say, for example that there is a fictive FOSS license that would
be written in English, yet have Malta as its jurisdiction …or,
even more confusingly, be written in English and have the UK (or
US) as its jurisdiction?
It's both. When I wrote that email in 2015 I used an "and" on purpose.
In the case of Quebec, they have a legal requirement that their licenses
must be in French. The EU has similar statutory language requirements.
By convention, OSS expects English as the language of the license, but
there are places in the world where that is legally impossible.
HTH.
--
*Mike Milinkovich*
*Executive Director | **Eclipse Foundation, Inc.*
mike.milinkov...@eclipse-foundation.org
@mmilinkov
+1.613.220.3223 (m)
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
