Re: copyright files in other languages
>>>>> "KR" == Kristoffer Rose <Kristoffer.Rose@ENS-Lyon.FR> writes:
KR> IMHO we should simply put the French copyright file in the
KR> distribution...
>> Should an English translation be required? Currently a user need
>> only speak English to decide if a package is free enough for him.
KR> ...because *requiring* an English distribution is
KR> discrimination!
No, requiring knowing dozens of languages would be *real* discrimination.
KR> You are right: this is a bad idea. Making English canonical is
KR> what will make the problems pop up: some people will be unhappy
KR> ("can I no longer make a fully-german Debian derivative?").
There is no restriction on Debian derivatives, isn't it?
KR> Yes, IMO users who cannot speak the language of the copyright
KR> file (or the documentation or whatever) will just have to make
KR> do.
Eh? Sorry, I don't want. If I made an interesting program with a
license in Czech, would you learn Czech to know usage and copying
conditions?
I don't want to use any program with no license I can read. So I'm
against inclusion of programs without license or its translation in
English.
I think requiring inclusion of (at least) unofficial English translation
of non-English license in the package in main is appropriate. I also
think the original license should be always included in the package of
course.
I'm not against allowing packages without license in English to go into
contrib or non-free.
Milan Zamazal
Reply to: