hello Guy, you are opening a can of worms, here. :)
On Sat, Jan 16, 1999 at 10:03:38AM -0800, Guy Maor wrote: > Should an English translation be required? Currently a user need only > speak English to decide if a package is free enough for him. "only" is interesting. I agree english is the world language, but still... many people have problems with the english language, especially with special cases like legalese(sp?). > What if the translation is wrong and implies that a free package is > non-free or vice-versa? What if my english is not good enough, then the same can happen. I see your point, though, and don't want to argue it. > We should request that the upstream author > bless the translation. Please define "bless". No author who has all senses together will offer you an alternative in a language he does not understand or wants to understand. If you choose a copyright notice in native language, you do it for a reason. We can't enforce this. And I think this should not be _required_ to include a software in main, although it would be _nice_ if the upstream author says that a translation is okay for informational purpose (though without legal force). > If we're unable to do this we can perhaps > write in the copyright file that this version is not canonical, and > that copyright.fr (for example) is. I'm not sure if this is a good > idea. Mmmh. It is at least a suggestion we should think about. What else can we do? Ah, wait. I think we should put _always_ the original copyright in "copyright.gz", and offer a probably (legally) invalid translation in copyright.en. [...] Marcus -- "Rhubarb is no Egyptian god." Debian GNU/Linux finger brinkmd@ Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.org master.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] for public PGP Key http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
