With regard to language: wouldn't it be more aligned with reducing license
proliferation to work with existing license stewards to encourage
authorized translations? Have there been license submissions in foreign
languages yet, and have those submitters been resistant to the idea of
adopting a translated existing license?
With regard to jurisdiction: do we have evidence that existing licenses
can't be enforced as per the intent of the license stewards in certain
juridictions because they use terms differently, or there are assumed
defaults in that jurisdiction that simply don't exist? If so, wouldn't it
be more aligned with reducing license proliferation to work with existing
license stewards to iterate existing licenses to adjust their language (or
add jurisdiction-specific terms) to address these exceptions?
I recognize the cultural hegemony of suggesting to someone of another
language or culture to use a translation of an old work, rather than
respect their original work. However I believe the risk of duplicative
projects that don't work together merely because of inconsequential
license differences to be a greater cost, as well as all the usual
overhead with license prolif. I would hope there are ways to bridge the
cultural differences; the approach that Creative Commons took to
internationalizing their license may be worth looking at. I see the GPL
has a page for unofficial translations; the unofficial status seems to be
due to a lack of funding rather than cultural import. And that has not
kept the GPL from spreading to large parts of the non-English world.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/translations.en.html
Brian
On Thu, 4 Jun 2015, Mike Milinkovich wrote:
At our last face-to-face meeting, the OSI Board discussed the topic of FLOSS
licenses targeted at specific languages and jurisdictions. As you can imagine,
with the interest in
reducing license proliferation, the conversation was quite lively. However, if
we want open source to be a truly worldwide movement, it seems unreasonable to
insist that English be
the only language allowed.
As a result, we would like to propose the following:
* A new category of open source licenses would be created for those targeting
specific languages and jurisdictions.
* The normal public license review process would be used to debate the merits
of the license. However, we would add a criteria targeted at preventing code
under the class of
licenses from being "orphaned". (This may, for example, be addressed in
candidate licenses by explicitly allowing re-licensing under other well-known licenses.)
* A certified English translation must accompany the license. We require a
certified English language translation of the license in order to conduct the
license review process,
which uses open discussion between many people who share English as a
second language regardless of their first language. Submitters can meet this
requirement by accompanying the
translation with an affidavit from the translator on which the translator
has sworn, in the presence of a commissioner authorized to administer oaths in
the place where the
affidavit is sworn, that the contents of the translation are a true
translation and representation of the contents of the original document. The
affidavit must include the date of
the translation and the full name and contact details of the translator.
* When you offer your license(s) to the review process, you should be aware
that change to the license is probable and be prepared to iterate. Certified
translations will not be
essential for every iteration but the final iteration must be accompanied
by a certified translation.
We would appreciate your thoughts and comments.
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
