Hi Luis,
I believe that you are right when categorizing the EUPL linguistic versions
as mere translation, even if the design of the license is in fact
compatible with porting (i.e. stating that the applicable law and the
competent court are those of the state of the licensor).
Some non-EU
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 2:36 AM, Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz
pe.schm...@googlemail.com wrote:
I believe that you are right when categorizing the EUPL linguistic
versions as mere translation, even if the design of the license is in fact
compatible with porting (i.e. stating that the applicable
Hello everyone.
I am Max from Donghua University.
I am developing an open-source project that is intended to be distributed
across boundaries. However laws is different from one country to another, hence
licenses may need to be localised appropriately. For example, few existing open
source
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
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
The links you included points to Chinese explanation of Unported license, not
the localized license itself. An example: CC-by-sa 3.0 China
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/cn/ this is the localized one.
Sent from my iPhone
On 2013年10月21日, at 21:29, David Woolley
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 6:29 AM, David Woolley
for...@david-woolley.me.ukwrote:
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
David Woolley scripsit:
No they don't. All the licences seem to be in English.
CC licenses are localized in the sense that they are adapted to local law.
That typically, but not always, means translation as well.
Chinese-specific CC-BY license:
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:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 7:17 AM, ChanMaxthon xcvi...@me.com wrote:
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
Problem: Chinese court generally require licenses be written in Chinese
language. So still, I need some mechanism to make l10n work.
Sent from my iPhone
On 2013年10月21日, at 22:34, Luis Villa l...@lu.is wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 6:29 AM, David Woolley for...@david-woolley.me.uk
wrote:
On Oct 21, 2013 8:51 AM, Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz
pe.schm...@googlemail.com wrote:
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
My understanding is that EUPL's translations are in the first category
(mere translation), since they can rely on cross-EU standardization of
legal regimes. Is that correct?
On the grounds that we see only one English version, i.e., it is not
differentiating between Ireland and UK (
I will avoid fragmentation by forcing all localized versions of the same
license freely interchangeable. A starting point: the license can be
substituted with another localization of the same license, even without making
any other modification to the work (distributors and copiers can
14 matches
Mail list logo
