[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [RFR] Please check English translation of ttf-ipafont license


 Thanks Justin and sorry for late. Because I got depression (a little), 
 and finally my doctor ask me to stop working. 
 (But I've continued some Debian work ;) because... I love it!)

 Now I re-start with this license translation. Please try to think
 this issue with me a bit more. please and please.
 Most of your suggestion to my translation is included and you may 
 can in svn repository.
 Please check it.

On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 16:25:20 +0000
Justin B Rye <jbr@edlug.org.uk> wrote:
> What happens if our translation is so wildly inaccurate that courts
> would consider monoglot anglophones reading it not to have accepted
> the original terms?  Would that mean we were distributing it
> illegally, or is the above warning enough to make users aware that
> installing it without understanding and accepting its original EULA
> constitutes software piracy?

 Um, they restrict not to use or redistribute, only to redistribute
 IPAfont derivatives. So we should not be aware of such case, I think.
 Only if package maintainer - it's me :) - will modify original font 
 data and redistribute it, then we should care about such problem.

> >     Information-technology Promotion Agency, Japan ("IPA")
> I would have expected there to be an article in here somewhere, but
> judging by their homepage this really is how they prefer to be
> referred to.  Speaking as somebody who already uses Debian-packaged
> IPA fonts where "IPA" means the International Phonetic Association,
> I wish somebody had told them that it's "I.T.", not "I(-t)"...

 Haha, I'll add such description of this package, okay?

> Is IPAfont really a "digital font program"?  I was under the
> impression that it was simply a TTF-format font family.  If it is,
> this text makes even less sense.  Maybe we need to say "Software"
> instead of "Program" throughout?

 THEY say it. 
 In Japan, font may be out of reach about copyright law. It's gray.
 So thay say it as a program.

> >     1.2. "Characteristic Program" means newly created Digital Font Program 
> >     and any other derivative works based upon character information or adapted 
> >     character information from all or any portion of Licensed Program, not 
> >     an “AS IS” basis of all or any portion of Licensed Program. 
> "Characteristic Program" is wrong, but I'm not sure what the correct
> form would be.  Is "characteristic" intended to mean "of or related
> to characters"?

 No, I change it as "Unique Programs" (wrong?)

> >     1.3. "Digital Contents" means the works that provided for end-users in 
> >     digital data format, including movie contents (movies and programs shows 
> >     on display or screen, like videos and pictures) and works that consist of 
> >     texts, images, graphics and others.

> Is "programs" here intended in the sense of "TV shows", or what?

 Yes, "TV shows", but if it would be used in Youtube or something,
 maybe it makes a loophole, I think.

> What distinction is intended in "on display or screen"?

 - display, we use it.
 - screen, we see at a cinema... I think.

> Is "like" here intended as "such as the following random examples"
> or "similar to the following particular examples"?

 Yes, I used it as such meaning.

> Where the list includes both "images" and "graphics", what is the
> intended distinction?

 Um, I cannot remember that... ;)

> A wild guess:
> 	1.3. "Digital Content" means any works provided for
> 	end-users in digital data format, including video content
> 	(movies and programs shown on a screen, such as videos or
> 	images) and works that consist of text, images, animations
> 	and so on.
> >     1.4. "Digital Document File" means PDF and any other document files that 
> >     is created with any software and embedded characters from any portion of 
> >     the Licensed Program.

 Okay, see text in repository.

> >     1.5. "Modification" means adapt skeleton of font, including creating new 
> >     character (external fonts) by splitting hand side or hand portion of a 
> >     Chinese character and adapting any portion of character.
> This must mean something specific that I don't know anything about.


> >     1.6. "Design Processing" means add an effect and a certain transformation 
> >     for fonts without adapting skelton of font, including character decoration 
> >     (bold, italic, shadow, underline, outline, relief and any other effects) 
> >     and any font effects on application software.
> Again, I have no clear idea what this means.  Probably there's
> appropriate English terminology that anglophone font specialists would 
> know...
 I'll ask it at pkg-font-devel (Debian Fonts Task Force mailing list)
 after this discussion.

> >     1.7. "Computers" means hereby including servers.
> 	1.7. "Computer" means any computer, including servers.
> This seems to say that the term "Computers" is being redefined to
> cover even the kinds of "servers" that wouldn't normally be included
> under the ordinary meaning of the word "computers" - but in English
> that implies it's talking about altar servers, salad servers, and so
> on.  Presumably the Japanese equivalent means something more like
> "PC", and needs this addition.

 How about this?

    1.7. "Computer" means hereby any computer, including network server 

> More of an issue: does it include embedded devices?

 Um, I don't know it. But they would say "That is a computer/server", 
 I guess.

> >     2.5. Recipient may embed the characters that only used in Digital Contents
> >     (subset characters) to Digital Document File under the terms and conditions 
> >     hereby granted, and may use the Digital Document File for Copying and any 
> >     other method of using. In this case, recipient of the Digital Document File
> >     don't need to follow this Agreement.
> 	2.5. The Recipient may embed the characters [...something]
> 	into Digital Document Files under the terms and conditions
> 	of this Agreement, and may use those Digital Document Files
> 	for Copying or Any Other Form of Use. In this case,
> 	recipients of the Digital Document File don't need to follow
> 	this Agreement.
> Though presumably the original version doesn't have the huge
> loophole here, where giving yourself a PDF makes the EULA optional.

 How about this?

    2.5. The Recipient may embed the characters (only subset characters) that 
    used into Digital Content and make Digital Document File under the terms and 
    conditions hereby granted, and may use the Digital Document File for Copying 
    or Any Other Form of use. In this case, recipient of the Digital Document 
    File don't need to follow this Agreement.

> Should RECEIPT here read THE RECIPIENT?  If so, who is YOU?



 Hideki Yamane     henrich @ debian.or.jp/iijmio-mail.jp

Reply to: