[License-discuss] International licenses redux

[Mike Milinkovich]

On 2018-12-07 3:06 a.m., Matija Šuklje wrote:
>> I suggest we continue to think of the International category as
>> encompassing licenses "targeting specific languages and
>> jurisdictions", to use Mike's phrasing from 2015, rather than
>> the typical approach we see in open source licensing of having
>> a single English-language text that is largely perceived by the
>> community, correctly or not, as being jurisdiction-neutral in
>> design or orientation.
> Just for clarification, is this more about language or
> jurisdiction (or both)?
>
> Say, for example that there is a fictive FOSS license that would
> be written in English, yet have Malta as its jurisdiction …or,
> even more confusingly, be written in English and have the UK (or
> US) as its jurisdiction?

It's both. When I wrote that email in 2015 I used an "and" on purpose. 
In the case of Quebec, they have a legal requirement that their licenses 
must be in French. The EU has similar statutory language requirements. 
By convention, OSS expects English as the language of the license, but 
there are places in the world where that is legally impossible.

HTH.

-- 

*Mike Milinkovich*

*Executive Director | **Eclipse Foundation, Inc.*

mike.milinkovich at eclipse-foundation.org

@mmilinkov

+1.613.220.3223 (m)



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20181207/0446d895/attachment.html>