The links you included points to Chinese explanation of Unported license, not the localized license itself. An example: CC-by-sa 3.0 China <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/cn/> this is the localized one.
Sent from my iPhone >> On 2013年10月21日, at 21:29, David Woolley <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 21/10/13 07:39, Maxthon Chan wrote: >> >> >> There is a project, Creative Commons, that focuses on providing free >> license for art, music and works alike. They tackled the localisation >> issue well, by providing localised licenses that is interchangeable with > > No they don't. All the licences seem to be in English. What is localised is > the lay person's summary of the licence. E.g., the Chinese summary of > CC-BY-SA, is <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.zh>, but the > first link on that page (法律文本（许可协议全文）), > <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode>, points to the > English language text of the actual licence. > >> each other, even in the copyleft variants.However Creative Commons does >> not work well with software. I can CC license my documentations but not >> the software itself. > >> I would like to know your opinions on a localisable open source license. > > In general, a translation of a licence is a different licence, because one > cannot exactly translate from one language to another. In fact, one could > probably argue that choice of law needs to be specified, as well. > > Although Creative Commons have chosen to create the lay versions of the > licence, I suspect many open source drafters would not want to do so, because > users might believe that the summary is the licence. > > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
