[License-discuss] Newbie post: Localisable open source software license

[ChanMaxthon]

The links you included points to Chinese explanation of Unported license, not the localized license itself. An example: CC-by-sa 3.0 China <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/cn/> this is the localized one.

Sent from my iPhone

>> On 2013年10月21日, at 21:29, David Woolley <forums at david-woolley.me.uk> wrote:
>> 
>> On 21/10/13 07:39, Maxthon Chan wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> There is a project, Creative Commons, that focuses on providing free
>> license for art, music and works alike. They tackled the localisation
>> issue well, by providing localised licenses that is interchangeable with
> 
> No they don't.  All the licences seem to be in English.  What is localised is the lay person's summary of the licence.  E.g., the Chinese summary of CC-BY-SA, is <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.zh>, but the first link on that page (法律文本（许可协议全文）), <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode>, points to the English language text of the actual licence.
> 
>> each other, even in the copyleft variants.However Creative Commons does
>> not work well with software. I can CC license my documentations but not
>> the software itself.
> 
>> I would like to know your opinions on a localisable open source license.
> 
> In general, a translation of a licence is a different licence, because one cannot exactly translate from one language to another.  In fact, one could probably argue that choice of law needs to be specified, as well.
> 
> Although Creative Commons have chosen to create the lay versions of the licence, I suspect many open source drafters would not want to do so, because users might believe that the summary is the licence.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss