Re: Please advise regarding DFSG compliance of WPL-2
Giacomo Tesio <giacomo@tesio.it> writes:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 16:20, Joerg Jaspert <joerg@debian.org> wrote:
> > Best: Someone (read: License author) could publish a translation
> > that is not saying "I'm rubbish".
>
> Are you sure that it's entirely possible?
Yes. It's up to the party publishing the license whether they claim the
translation represents what they want to communicate.
> It's not always possible to perform a lossless translation between two
> human languages, and I'm not sure if having two not perfectly
> equivalent licenses is such a best practice.
That's not what Joerg proposed. It doesn't need to be perfect, it needs
meet only the lower bar that the party publsihing that text stands
behind its meaning as accurately representing their communication.
In the absence of that, it's not for anyone else to authoritatively
claim that they have an accurate representation of the license author's
meaning. So it's a problem that can only be addressed by the license
author/publisher.
Publishing a translation, while simultaneously saying “this translation
can't be relied on”, is totally worthless for a legal text with precise
meanings.
--
\ “We should be less concerned about adding years to life, and |
`\ more about adding life to years.” —Arthur C. Clarke, 2001 |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
Reply to: