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

Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz pe.schmitz at googlemail.com
Mon Oct 21 14:57:40 UTC 2013

Dear all,
The most localisable experience so far regarding open source software
licences is the EUPL, which has currently a working value (and is
OSI-approved) in 22 languages. However it is not a BSD-style licence, but a
copyleft licence with an interoperability clause:
As a document published by the European Commission, the EUPL can be reused
as a template by other countries or organisations, according to article 4
and 6 of the
COMMISSION DECISION of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission
documents (2011/833/EU)

In case it could be of some use for you...

2013/10/21 ChanMaxthon <xcvista at me.com>

> Those CC licenses are indeed interchangeable l10ns, if it have the same
> properties. They also have special clause in the licenses to permit
> interchanging l10ns of the license in the actual legal code. Example: CC-by
> 3.0 China (in Simplified Chinese, on top of Chinese laws) versus CC-by 3.0
> United States (in English, on top of US laws) versus CC-by 3.0 Unported (in
> English, on top of UN-administered international treaties)
> What I am trying here is to add similar clauses into open source licenses
> for software, making it similarly localizable. I will also include a
> single-direction relicensing clause converting the localizable variant to
> its base license. My current project is an l10n-3BSDL, will also have
> l10n-2BSDL (converts down to both 2-clause BSDL and MIT), l10n-Apache2,
> l10n-LGPL3 and l10n-GPL3 forks.
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz
pe.schmitz at googlemail.com
tel. + 32 478 50 40 65
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20131021/52302f48/attachment.html>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list