On 20.02.19 21:30, Christian Kastner wrote:
> On 20.02.19 11:37, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
>> This is starting to be a bit theoretical,
^^^
This particular sentence got dropped from my previous reply -- sorry!
> No, not this particular example we were discussing [...]
On 20.02.19 11:37, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> I note you still don't answer my question.
>
> Let me restate this: is an English license mandatory in Debian?
> If so, shouldn't it be noted somewhere? E.g. in the DFSG?
IIRC, whatever license is acceptable (even if in English) has ultimately
always been
I note you still don't answer my question.
Let me restate this: is an English license mandatory in Debian?
If so, shouldn't it be noted somewhere? E.g. in the DFSG?
On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 16:06, Christian Kastner wrote:
>
> Licensee being fooled by the translation implies that they assigned
On 2019-02-19 14:46, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> I think you are misreading my statement.
I think it's the other way around ;-)
> I'm NOT saying that a Judge would consider the English text as legally
> binding: only the Arabic version is.
>
> I'm saying that Judges will consider all elements
On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 14:18, Christian Kastner wrote:
>
> On 2019-02-19 09:58, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> >> This is the informal English translation of Waqf General Public
> >> License. Anything but the Arabic version of the license has no
> >> value except for convenience of our English speaking
On 2019-02-19 09:58, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
>> This is the informal English translation of Waqf General Public
>> License. Anything but the Arabic version of the license has no
>> value except for convenience of our English speaking users.
[...]
> - a Judge will very likely take into account any
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 22:49, Ben Finney wrote:
>
> Giacomo Tesio writes:
> > It's not always possible to perform a lossless translation between two
> > human languages, and I'm not sure if having two not perfectly
> > equivalent licenses is such a best practice.
>
> That's not what Joerg
أحمد المحموديwrites:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 04:37:39AM +, Landry, Walter wrote:
>> However, this part
>>
>> >
>> > Third - Coverage:
>> >
>> > Waqf license can cover the published works with other licenses that do
>> > not conflict with it. Also Waqf can cover the parts that
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 04:37:39AM +, Landry, Walter wrote:
> However, this part
>
> >
> > Third - Coverage:
> >
> > Waqf license can cover the published works with other licenses that do
> > not conflict with it. Also Waqf can cover the parts that complement
> > the work of other
Giacomo Tesio writes:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 16:20, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > Best: Someone (read: License author) could publish a translation
> > that is not saying "I'm rubbish".
>
> Are you sure that it's entirely possible?
Yes. It's up to the party publishing the license whether they
On 15317 March 1977, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
Best: Someone (read: License author) could publish a translation that is
not
saying "I'm rubbish".
Are you sure that it's entirely possible?
No idea.
It's not always possible to perform a lossless translation between two
human languages, and I'm
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 16:20, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>
> On 15317 March 1977, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
>
> >> None of the ftpteam, to my knowledge, is able to read and understand the
> >> arabic version, and this english translation is saying its worth
> >> nothing.
> > This sound like a severe
On 15317 March 1977, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
None of the ftpteam, to my knowledge, is able to read and understand the
arabic version, and this english translation is saying its worth
nothing.
This sound like a severe cultural limitation though, affecting all
non-english developers and users.
Can
أحمد المحموديwrites:
> Hello,
>
> Debian contains some packages licensed under Waqf Public License in
> non-free section. Most of the packages are switching to WPL-2 which I
> think is DFSG compliant, so I am seeking your advice.
To clarify, othman is one such package. The previous
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 10:06, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> None of the ftpteam, to my knowledge, is able to read and understand the
> arabic version, and this english translation is saying its worth
> nothing.
This sound like a severe cultural limitation though, affecting all
non-english developers
On 15317 March 1977, أحمد المحمودي wrote:
Debian contains some packages licensed under Waqf Public License in
non-free section. Most of the packages are switching to WPL-2 which I
think is DFSG compliant, so I am seeking your advice.
This is the authoritative Arabic version of the
أحمد المحمودي writes:
> This is the authoritative Arabic version of the license [Waqf Public
> License 2.0], followed by the informal English translation of the
> license.
Thank you for providing both in this mailing list thread, for
examination.
The freedom or otherwise of software is
Hello,
Debian contains some packages licensed under Waqf Public License in
non-free section. Most of the packages are switching to WPL-2 which I
think is DFSG compliant, so I am seeking your advice.
This is the authoritative Arabic version of the license, followed by the
informal
18 matches
Mail list logo
