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

Re: Is an English license mandatory in Debian? (was: Please advise regarding DFSG compliance of WPL-2)



On 20.02.19 11:37, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> I note you still don't answer my question.
> 
> Let me restate this: is an English license mandatory in Debian?
> If so, shouldn't it be noted somewhere? E.g. in the DFSG?
IIRC, whatever license is acceptable (even if in English) has ultimately
always been up to ftp-master, so only they can answer that, sorry.

> On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 16:06, Christian Kastner <ckk@kvr.at> wrote:
>>
>> Licensee being fooled by the translation implies that they assigned (at
>> least some) value to the translation, which is something that the text
>> expressly tells them not to do.
>>
>> Licensee ignored Licensor's disclaimer, and it's all but impossible to
>> see a judge fault the Licensor for the Licensee's notable ignorance.
> > This is starting to be a bit theoretical,

No, not this particular example we were discussing (and note that I was
very specific about my previous opinion being limited to this example
alone).

I didn't claim the text was "non-authoritative", I specifically claimed
that it was "void" (as per its own declaration of being of "no value").

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_(law)

The example below, which you seem to see as equivalent, is entirely
different, and much more complex. Being purely theoretical, I don't see
the merit of going into the specifics of why, sorry.

but nevertheless interesting.
> Imagine if you were right and a Chinese or Arabic web service
> porposedly did a translation error in the _non-authoritative_ English
> translation of their Term of Services.
> A simple negation got accidentally inserted midtext.
> 
> The English text states "By using the Service, the User will NOT
> assign a non-exclusive, worldwide, transderable copyright to the
> Service Provider on any contents created by the User".
> 
> Do you really think that a Judge would recognise the copyright
> assignment to the Service Provider just because the ToS states,
> clearly and bluntly, that the English text is not autoritative?
> 
> 
> Judges do errors, but they are not dumb computers.
> 
> 
> Giacomo

Regards,
Christian


Reply to: