[License-discuss] International Licenses

[Brian Behlendorf]

With regard to language: wouldn't it be more aligned with reducing license 
proliferation to work with existing license stewards to encourage 
authorized translations?  Have there been license submissions in foreign 
languages yet, and have those submitters been resistant to the idea of 
adopting a translated existing license?

With regard to jurisdiction: do we have evidence that existing licenses 
can't be enforced as per the intent of the license stewards in certain 
juridictions because they use terms differently, or there are assumed 
defaults in that jurisdiction that simply don't exist?  If so, wouldn't it 
be more aligned with reducing license proliferation to work with existing 
license stewards to iterate existing licenses to adjust their language (or 
add jurisdiction-specific terms) to address these exceptions?

I recognize the cultural hegemony of suggesting to someone of another 
language or culture to use a translation of an old work, rather than 
respect their original work.  However I believe the risk of duplicative 
projects that don't work together merely because of inconsequential 
license differences to be a greater cost, as well as all the usual 
overhead with license prolif.  I would hope there are ways to bridge the 
cultural differences; the approach that Creative Commons took to 
internationalizing their license may be worth looking at.  I see the GPL 
has a page for unofficial translations; the unofficial status seems to be 
due to a lack of funding rather than cultural import.  And that has not 
kept the GPL from spreading to large parts of the non-English world.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/translations.en.html

Brian

On Thu, 4 Jun 2015, Mike Milinkovich wrote:
> At our last face-to-face meeting, the OSI Board discussed the topic of FLOSS licenses targeted at specific languages and jurisdictions. As you can imagine, with the interest in
> reducing license proliferation, the conversation was quite lively. However, if we want open source to be a truly worldwide movement, it seems unreasonable to insist that English be
> the only language allowed. 
> 
> As a result, we would like to propose the following:
>  *  A new category of open source licenses would be created for those targeting specific languages and jurisdictions.
>
>  *  The normal public license review process would be used to debate the merits of the license. However, we would add a criteria targeted at preventing code under the class of
>     licenses from being "orphaned". (This may, for example, be addressed in candidate licenses by explicitly allowing re-licensing under other well-known licenses.)
>
>  *  A certified English translation must accompany the license. We require a certified English language translation of the license in order to conduct the license review process,
>     which uses open discussion between many people who share English as a second language regardless of their first language. Submitters can meet this requirement by accompanying the
>     translation with an affidavit from the translator on which the translator has sworn, in the presence of a commissioner authorized to administer oaths in the place where the
>     affidavit is sworn, that the contents of the translation are a true translation and representation of the contents of the original document. The affidavit must include the date of
>     the translation and the full name and contact details of the translator.
>
>  *  When you offer your license(s) to the review process, you should be aware that change to the license is probable and be prepared to iterate. Certified translations will not be
>     essential for every iteration but the final iteration must be accompanied by a certified translation.
> We would appreciate your thoughts and comments.
> 
>