Re: CeCILL again...
Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>:
> I think that it's fine to have licenses in other languages; I just think
> that there should always be an authoritative license in English, too.
I don't think that's acceptable as a general rule. The licence is
binding on the licensor, who should not have to be bound by a text in
a language that they don't understand properly.
> I don't think it's acceptable to have a /usr/share/doc/foo/copyright that
> doesn't include a *binding* English version. The general case would lead to
> having those files in a dozen different languages, and nobody anywhere would
> actually be able to understand their rights (except for linguists); everyone
> would have to trust in a non-binding translation and the word of somebody
> they don't know that it's equivalent to the real terms.
In practice almost everyone relies to some extent on other people's
opinion of the licence even when it's written in their own language.
Also, it seems rather unreliable to have a text in English that is to
be interpreted under French law. There might be nasty surprises for
everyone if such a thing ends up in court. To put it another way, even
an English lawyer might prefer the text to be in French if it is to be
interpreted under French law.
Of course, if the licensor is happy to parallel-license under several
language versions, I would encourage them to do so. It would be very
helpful. I just wouldn't want to make it a Debian rule that they have
to do that.
Reply to: