On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> >I think the "license" file could be one of the controversial > >issues, regarding the "accuracy" of the translation. If you > >need "assurance" of the quality of the translation, I am > >willing to put the confirmation of laywers in japan (my friends), > >sooner or later. > > This has come up - from the perspective that the license may not > be enforceable in some jurisdictions without the native translation. > At some point translations might become necessary. Eh - you want to be preceice here; generally when you have two entities who are both in X then you want to make sure that their agrement is constructed according to X law and habits. If the entities are in X and Y then generally the law and language of the license granter is used (or the Seller, etc - there is a whole international law framework specially for this). So, say, a German developer using the GPL for his code , may well need a german version. We may have this issue when we accept code from a third party in Germany. However... the apache end user license is 'special' in that it is an agreement with the Apache Software Foundation, a Delaware, US Inc to some other entity. So for _us_ (not for the general open source case) we are fine with a License written in the US langauge and within the US framework - and though it is nice to have translations to _explain_ the license; the authoritative document of the Apache Software Foundation is, and will be, in US English only. Dw --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
