Dear all, The most localisable experience so far regarding open source software licences is the EUPL, which has currently a working value (and is OSI-approved) in 22 languages. However it is not a BSD-style licence, but a copyleft licence with an interoperability clause: https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/software/page/eupl/licence-eupl As a document published by the European Commission, the EUPL can be reused as a template by other countries or organisations, according to article 4 and 6 of the COMMISSION DECISION of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (2011/833/EU)
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:330:0039:0042:EN:PDF In case it could be of some use for you... Best, P-E 2013/10/21 ChanMaxthon <xcvi...@me.com> > Those CC licenses are indeed interchangeable l10ns, if it have the same > properties. They also have special clause in the licenses to permit > interchanging l10ns of the license in the actual legal code. Example: CC-by > 3.0 China (in Simplified Chinese, on top of Chinese laws) versus CC-by 3.0 > United States (in English, on top of US laws) versus CC-by 3.0 Unported (in > English, on top of UN-administered international treaties) > > What I am trying here is to add similar clauses into open source licenses > for software, making it similarly localizable. I will also include a > single-direction relicensing clause converting the localizable variant to > its base license. My current project is an l10n-3BSDL, will also have > l10n-2BSDL (converts down to both 2-clause BSDL and MIT), l10n-Apache2, > l10n-LGPL3 and l10n-GPL3 forks. > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 2013年10月21日, at 21:29, David Woolley <for...@david-woolley.me.uk> > wrote: > > > >> On 21/10/13 07:39, Maxthon Chan wrote: > >> > >> > >> There is a project, Creative Commons, that focuses on providing free > >> license for art, music and works alike. They tackled the localisation > >> issue well, by providing localised licenses that is interchangeable with > > > > No they don't. All the licences seem to be in English. What is > localised is the lay person's summary of the licence. E.g., the Chinese > summary of CC-BY-SA, is < > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.zh>, but the first > link on that page (法律文本(许可协议全文)), < > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode>, points to the > English language text of the actual licence. > > > >> each other, even in the copyleft variants.However Creative Commons does > >> not work well with software. I can CC license my documentations but not > >> the software itself. > > > >> I would like to know your opinions on a localisable open source license. > > > > In general, a translation of a licence is a different licence, because > one cannot exactly translate from one language to another. In fact, one > could probably argue that choice of law needs to be specified, as well. > > > > Although Creative Commons have chosen to create the lay versions of the > licence, I suspect many open source drafters would not want to do so, > because users might believe that the summary is the licence. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > License-discuss mailing list > > License-discuss@opensource.org > > http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org > http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > -- Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz pe.schm...@googlemail.com tel. + 32 478 50 40 65
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss