Uniform terminology (Re: UnitedLinux and "open source")

[I.R.Maturana]

> > Agree. I strongly suggest to consider also a solution where 
> > contract models are "translatable". 
> > That is, fully enforceable in all languages.
> 
> The trouble there is that using a different language potentially
> drags in a different legal system where the terms may *need* to b
> different.
> John Cowan <jcowan reutershealth com>     

This does not override the translatable requisite? 
One translatable definition is indeed an excellent rule to enforce 
concepts, and to expose substantial principles. 
If some terms need to be different, you simply need to make clear 
the difference in the translatable model, then the translated 
versions will reflect the difference.

Note that a definition based on trusted principles does not 
need to refer to an exclusive language. Instead, what you get
is some "mutually recognized" wording for the same principles,
and each version will be freely used as reference. 
What you get is really a Treaty (but directly between people, 
or authors and licensees in this case).

My comment is not a joke, but plain truth: ensuring that the 
definition is translatable, and translated, is the better way to 
agree on clear, shared, common principles. And of course, the
best guarantee that its principles will be enforceable under 
any legal system. This is because there is no other source of 
the right that the people's will -- provided that people can 
understand what they say, of course.

Well, I am sure that nobody would want to use a definition that 
only a translator (or a lawyer) would be able to understand.
;-D)


(To be translatable, or not to be)

[I.R.Maturana -- Trad En>[ES<>FR] - http://www.in3activa.net ]
PLT/LPT License: http://www.in3activa.org/doc/en/LPT-EN.html



--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3