Jamie Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 13:27 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
>
>>On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 02:30:50PM +1000, Jamie Jones wrote:
>>
>>>In the event of any license related issues perhaps caused by
>>>mis-translation, the Japanese version is the canonical version that must
>>>be followed.
>>
>>Isn't this the case only if someone else than the author translated
>>the license?
>
>
> Based on my understanding of Japanese law, the original document being
> in Japanese is the one that is legally binding, even if the author makes
> an English translation. Other jurisdictions may accept a hypothetical
> English translation, but in the event of a dispute, the correct terms
> are in the Japanese version.
>
> IANAL, TINLA.
> Regards,
Many of the non-English speaking countries only accept the law terms
written in their official languages. What should I do if I want to
package the software if the license in every files in the source tarball
is non-English? Should I paste the non-English license to debian-legal
for comments? Or should I ask the upstream author to remove the
non-English version and add an English one? What is the proper way?
Thanks,
Ying-Chun Liu
--
PaulLiu(Ying-Chun Liu)
E-mail address:grandpaul@gmail.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature