Re: Translated License
Am Sonntag, den 03.08.2014, 15:10 +1000 schrieb Riley Baird: I suggest licensing under the MIT license, as is (in English), Thank you for your opinion! We have done so already a long time ago: http://projekte.dante.de/Trennmuster/Lizenzen gp -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1414450333.12990.4.camel@localhost
Re: Translated License
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 W dniu 04.08.2014 o 15:18, Georg Pfeiffer pisze: Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes: There is nothing wrong with a copyright licence in German. Thank you very much for this clear position, wich seemed to be mine only for discouraging long times :D My german combattants bothered, our german license would be estimated non-free because it is not OSI certified. So we selected Jonathans proposal already a long time ago, regrettably. But I won't mess that up again. Georg I have seen some small mistakes in a Polish (?) translation of the GPL that could be quite dangerous if the translation would be legally binding. - -- Pozdrawiam, Mateusz Jończyk AEI, Informatyka, Semestr 3 Magisterskich, BDiIS -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: My public key: 0x2C64C488 on hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJT5jTyAAoJELLT9LcsZMSITqoH/ir88Q2xoJcnBuXEff0eAmd8 MlzhOq31gL495BWMAK6QgpZtjzCVpaMOfkn0ySK8jUJhzlkXOQyRIV2elr8K+R5U oID3GkiuZFa+Ayj0gQSXvaD9aVfvBuPTXauVdGg/fRQb+NhnhEORc/5+hHWREs6n kXwq5ojJQXDzxywZ3xvgOq+CP928XxmwiUKDjbNeTdo0FLnLCUVIee6vrbcFX9RR OwbLLvzkp/wHB+7HCEm8+lX58e4hx7FC0KmNX9rRDeF/5jgRDKslhmh9PwGlJCxB FvS6JXpEawUq+8dvBPzEQE9PJ2Af0/X/d85Uk917nPq/XkFW9czSFddde/bekwc= =m0mq -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53e634f5.9040...@o2.pl
Re: Translated License
Georg Pfeiffer writes (Translated License): We intend to give the whole project a default license wich is a german translation of the MIT license [2]. The english text is included. Our intention is, that the german text shall be more clear and more convenient to german project members (authors) as well as for german customers wich we estimate to be the majority as well on the author as on the customer side. There is nothing wrong with a copyright licence in German. I disagree with the other posters who have said that an English licence is to be preferred. In practice we (Debian) have plenty of German speakers who can review a German licence, and we should be prepared to do so. Thanks, Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21471.30266.423510.360...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: Translated License
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes: There is nothing wrong with a copyright licence in German. Thank you very much for this clear position, wich seemed to be mine only for discouraging long times :D My german combattants bothered, our german license would be estimated non-free because it is not OSI certified. So we selected Jonathans proposal already a long time ago, regrettably. But I won't mess that up again. Georg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/8738dcs89e@ragp.ragp.de
Re: Translated License
Georg Pfeiffer writes (Re: Translated License): Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes: There is nothing wrong with a copyright licence in German. Thank you very much for this clear position, wich seemed to be mine only for discouraging long times :D My german combattants bothered, our german license would be estimated non-free because it is not OSI certified. So we selected Jonathans proposal already a long time ago, regrettably. But I won't mess that up again. It's true that having your licence not be OSI-certified might be inconvenient in some situations, but: - Debian at least does not care whether anything is OSI-certified. We make our own decisions. - Getting your licence OSI-certified ought to be feasible I think. Wanting your licence to be in the native language of the vast majority of your contributors is a good reason for having a different licence. IMO. Regards, Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21471.36211.411250.901...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: Translated License
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes: We make our own decisions. Thats why I love it. :) Georg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/8761i8jrha@ejus.ejus
Re: Translated License
On 03/08/2014 09:48 PM, Georg Pfeiffer wrote: Dear Sirs, the german trennmuster project [1] provides a LaTeX package de-hyph-exptl wich is part of the debian texlive-lang-german package. The core component is a long list of german words as source for the generation of hyphenation patterns wich is actually not a part of debian. We intend to give the whole project a default license wich is a german translation of the MIT license [2]. The english text is included. Our intention is, that the german text shall be more clear and more convenient to german project members (authors) as well as for german customers wich we estimate to be the majority as well on the author as on the customer side. Are there any concerns about the assignment of a german language license to an almost german project? The sub parts of our project integrated into debian packages will stay further under the common english licenses of course. The only problem I see is, which license takes legal force? Will the project be licensed under the MIT (English) License, with the German version provided merely for convenience, or vice versa; or even dual licensed under both. Consider: what if there is a mistranslation, or other error in only one version of the license. Which would take precedence? I suggest licensing under the MIT license, as is (in English), and specifying (either in German or English (or both?)) that the German translation is merely for reference/convenience sake. I suggest using the English version as the official version not to discriminate against German users, but to avoid license proliferation, and to expose any potential legal issues in the license to a wider audience. (And, of course, the community has already established that there are no problems with MIT as is.) All that said, IANAL, and I do not represent the position of Debian or anyone else. If you deny a comment because it affects non debian topics only, please give us a hint to a relevant site or discussion. Georg [1] http://projekte.dante.de/Trennmuster/WebHome [2] http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php Regards, Jon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53ddc221.8070...@gmx.us
Re: Translated License
On 03/08/14 15:01, Jonathan Paugh wrote: On 03/08/2014 09:48 PM, Georg Pfeiffer wrote: Dear Sirs, the german trennmuster project [1] provides a LaTeX package de-hyph-exptl wich is part of the debian texlive-lang-german package. The core component is a long list of german words as source for the generation of hyphenation patterns wich is actually not a part of debian. We intend to give the whole project a default license wich is a german translation of the MIT license [2]. The english text is included. Our intention is, that the german text shall be more clear and more convenient to german project members (authors) as well as for german customers wich we estimate to be the majority as well on the author as on the customer side. Are there any concerns about the assignment of a german language license to an almost german project? The sub parts of our project integrated into debian packages will stay further under the common english licenses of course. The only problem I see is, which license takes legal force? Will the project be licensed under the MIT (English) License, with the German version provided merely for convenience, or vice versa; or even dual licensed under both. Consider: what if there is a mistranslation, or other error in only one version of the license. Which would take precedence? I suggest licensing under the MIT license, as is (in English), and specifying (either in German or English (or both?)) that the German translation is merely for reference/convenience sake. I suggest using the English version as the official version not to discriminate against German users, but to avoid license proliferation, and to expose any potential legal issues in the license to a wider audience. (And, of course, the community has already established that there are no problems with MIT as is.) All that said, IANAL, and I do not represent the position of Debian or anyone else. If I remember, a license can still be DFSG-free even if it isn't in English, but as has been said above, an English license is preferable. You could always dual license; even if the German translation later turns out to be non-free for some technical reason, you can still keep the package in main because of the MIT license. Also, for German-speaking contributors, they will be releasing their contributions under a license that they understand. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53ddc45b.7030...@bitmessage.ch
Translated License
Dear Sirs, the german trennmuster project [1] provides a LaTeX package de-hyph-exptl wich is part of the debian texlive-lang-german package. The core component is a long list of german words as source for the generation of hyphenation patterns wich is actually not a part of debian. We intend to give the whole project a default license wich is a german translation of the MIT license [2]. The english text is included. Our intention is, that the german text shall be more clear and more convenient to german project members (authors) as well as for german customers wich we estimate to be the majority as well on the author as on the customer side. Are there any concerns about the assignment of a german language license to an almost german project? The sub parts of our project integrated into debian packages will stay further under the common english licenses of course. If you deny a comment because it affects non debian topics only, please give us a hint to a relevant site or discussion. Georg [1] http://projekte.dante.de/Trennmuster/WebHome [2] http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
