Re: ocaml, QPL and the DFSG: New ocaml licence proposal.

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>]

On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 10:30:15AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 08:55:08AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > 
> >>Sven Luther wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 10:11:38AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 07:48:17PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Moreover, we need these licenses to be recognized as open-source by
> >>>>> Debian and other authorities before even considering to use them.
> >>>>
> >>>>The problem you are going to end up with for this, though, is that there is
> >>>>no authoritative English version of the licences.  The translation of the
> >>>
> >>>Bah, whatever, the first and only copy of this licence i have seen was in
> >>>english, so what is the problem ?
> >>
> >>Yes, there is an English translation.  That translation is
> >>non-authoritative, and specifically states that "the French version is
> >>authoritative".  Therefore, it is irrelevant if the English version is a
> >>Free license, because that version is non-binding.  We would need to
> >>specifically check the authoritative French version.
> > 
> > That means that for a non-english speaker, each licence is non-free ?
> 
> Not at all.  It means that an analysis of the English version that found
> it to be Free, while useful, would not not sufficient to say that a
> package under the license is Free, because the license specifically
> states the following:
> > 11.5. LANGUAGE
> > 
> > The Agreement is drafted in both French and English. In the event of a
> > conflict as regards construction, the French version shall be deemed
> > authentic.
> 
> This means that we do need a French speaker (or preferably several) to
> confirm that the English analysis also applies to the French version of
> the license.

I will be glade to take that role.

> > Seriously, you are only hiding behind the words, nothing is stopping you from
> > making an analysis of the english version. And as none here is a official
> > translator recognized by legal system, even if we were to declare the
> > translation accurate, this won't help.
> > 
> > The fact to declare the french version authoritative is only there to be a
> > backup if this even comes to court over a difference of interpretation, it is
> > not to let you declare the english version as unusable.
> 
> "a backup if this even comes to court" is another way of saying "if it
> ever turns out to matter what the license says".  We need to confirm
> that the authoritative version of the license is Free, and that requires
> understanding what the license actually says.  As described below, that
> will not be excessively difficult; we just need a few French speakers to
> confirm that the analysis of the English version also applies to the
> French version.

Yeah, but you are somehow implying that the translation is unthrustable, which
i believe it is not. Just that in case of conflict, the french version is
authoritative, but this is mostly for small nuance conflicts that may arise. 

> >>>>licence vetting process is what I've heard it is (trusting the drafting
> >>>>lawyer's assertion that it's OK) you might be OK there, but I doubt
> >>>>debian-legal is going to be able to discuss a licence without an
> >>>>authoritative English version to work from.
> >>>
> >>>So, everybody here should learn french :)
> >>>
> >>>No, seriously, we have enough french speaking developers that this should not
> >>>be a problem, and since there is an english translation (and as said, the
> >>>first link i found was a 9 page or so english PDF), this should be no major
> >>>problem. Also, i believe that this is one of the usefull input you could
> >>>provide to the comittee developing those licences, don't you think.
> >>
> >>I think that what we could do is this: get a couple of developers who
> >>speak both French and English to read the authoritative French version
> >>and the English version, and tell us "The translation is accurate".
> > 
> > What about reading and comenting the licences in questions, and have a french
> > speaking dd (well, at least me, not sure if other would care about
> > debian-legal kind of analysis) check your assumpted reading with the french
> > version.
> 
> That's actually exactly what I meant by...

Ok. It is just that for me to claim the translation is accurate is a bit not
very usefull. I doubt that i am a better translator than the one used for
doing the english translation, so i would thrust him more than me. But
following the arguments and checking them with the french original, that is
ok.

> >>debian-legal could then review the English version, and if there are any
> >>ambiguities in wording, ask those developers for clarifications based on
> >>the French version.  It's not ideal, but it would work.
> 
> ...this.

But let's do so in another thread maybe.

Friendly,

Sven Luther