On 06/05/2013 10:47, Diego Bosc? wrote: > In fact, 'license' could be translated, but translating 'copyright' > makes less sense >
Clearly we are not in the business of creating translations of things like the CC licenses ourselves, which is the license of archetypes (at least openEHR ones). We would need to rely on those ones that are created by creativecommons.org community. This CC page <http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Translate> talks about translating licences. It's not obvious to me on a brief look, but I would expect that for any given canonical license URL like http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ to have equivalents in other languages like http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/es for Spanish etc. I also suspect that for a CC (and other) license in English language, and with 'international' as the jurisdiction, that English is actually the official language of the license, for all users, on the assumption that any court that might process a case based on one of these licenses would be an international court and have English as its working language (like the Hague ICC does). The only use of translations - I think - is to just enable non-EN maternal language users to more easily understand the license. So we either treat the license field as a non-translated field and just include canonical (EN) URL, and assume the user will go and find the translation if they need one - I think this will be easier. If we treat it as a translatable field, then we probably have to figure out a correct URL for each translation, which might just be the 'en' one for languages in which the CC license is not yet available. This seems an annoyance with no real gain. - thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130506/b00885e1/attachment.html>
