Request for approval: EUPL (European Union Public Licence)
nelson at crynwr.com
Sat Mar 15 16:26:40 UTC 2008
Matthew Flaschen writes:
> In my opinion, it would be unwise of the OSI to approve the non-English
> language versions at this time. This is because translation errors can
> affect the meaning, the majority of the OSI board is only fluent in
> English (as far as I know), and hiring independent translators familiar
> with legal terms would be cost-prohibitive.
> This means, "The European Commission may put into force translations"
> must be removed. Particularly with the binding "new version" clause,
> this is not satisfactory.
You are correct, however, there are other potential solutions. For
example, one solution would be to say that a licensee may switch
between translation of a license. That way, when we approve the
English-language version, someone always has recourse to a license
which is OSI-approved. And it puts the onus for ensuring that all
translations have the same legal effect on the licensor.
> That clause, stating that a "new version of the Licence becomes binding
> for You as soon as You become aware of its publication."
> allows you to make the license non-OSD compliant at any time, by putting
> out a new version or translation.
Yes, this clause is not acceptable. *I* could accept "new version of
the License becomes finding for You as soon as You become aware of its
approval by the OSI as an Open Source license." but I recognize that
other people may feel differently.
> First, I think that law is itself fairly draconian, and would have a
> chilling effect if enforced. See for instance the unofficial Debian
> Dissident Test (http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html), which
> says, "Consider a dissident in a totalitarian state who wishes to share
> a modified bit of software with fellow dissidents, but does not wish to
> reveal the identity of the modifier..."
Free Software in a totalitarian state? Why don't we also imagine
frozen steam at the same time?
> It seems to me that, "This Licence shall be governed by the law of the
> European Union country where the Licensor resides or has his registered
> office ... This licence shall be governed by the Belgian law if the
> Licensor, other than the European Commission, has no residence or
> registered office inside a European Union country."
> does indeed always impose European law (even when neither party resides
> in the EU), which is not reasonable.
Sure it is. It's just a choice of legal systems, just a
jurisdiction. Otherwise you're asking lawyers to draft a legal
document without knowing what system of laws it will be subject to.
Let's play a card game without Hoyle's and see if we can do it without
--my blog is at http://blog.russnelson.com | Software that needs
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | documentation is software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 | that needs repair.
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog |
More information about the License-review