[License-review] For Legacy Approval: TOPPERS License

Wed Nov 4 17:47:57 UTC 2015

Hi Yutaka,

We'd prefer to have an affidavit from a professional translation
service. I realize that might be a little odd in this case, but the
nature of this case also calls for some extra care on our part. It's
okay to proceed as you suggest. But we might nonetheless subsequently
ask you (or others) to provide an additional translation of the
Japanese version of the license, or to provide a second affidavit, so
that might further delay approval of the TOPPERS license.

Richard

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 01:24:45PM +0900, Yutaka MATSUBARA wrote:
> Hi Richard,
> 
> Do you have any comments about this?
> If no, I will prepare and submit an official affidavit to this ML.
> 
> Thanks,
> Yutaka
> 
> On 10/16/15 11:04, Yutaka MATSUBARA wrote:
> >Hi Richard,
> >
> >Thank you for your following-up comment.
> >
> >We can use a professional translation service if it will be needed.
> >But, I don't think that it's the best way to show the accuracy of our
> >translation because results from a translation service would depend on
> >background or knowledge of translators.
> >
> >In our intention in the affidavit, the lawyer who has deep knowledge
> >about computer science and open-source software validates the
> >translation and has the responsibility to attest to the accuracy of
> >the translation of the Japanese license.
> >
> >Do you agree with the above approach?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Yutaka
> >
> >On 10/15/15 15:20, Richard Fontana wrote:
> >>Hi Yutaka,
> >>
> >>Following up here. I believe I may have misunderstood the nature of
> >>your draft affidavit. Anyway, is there any possibility you could use a
> >>professional translation service -- whether to provide a fresh
> >>certified translation of the Japanese license (which we can then
> >>compare to the English TOPPERS license in its latest iteration) or,
> >>perhaps more problematically, to attest to the accuracy of that latest
> >>iteration as a true translation of the Japanese license?
> >>
> >>Richard
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 06:21:51PM -0700, Yutaka MATSUBARA wrote:
> >>>Hello Richard,
> >>>
> >>>I created a draft of the affidavit for TOPPERS License and uploaded
> >>>here.
> >>>
> >>>https://www.dropbox.com/s/u8jla5lgql6wb2q/AffidavitOfTOPPERSLicenseAsInternationalLicense-draft-1.pdf?dl=0
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>By this affidavit, we will declare the followings.
> >>>
> >>>- both of the submitted English-language license and the
> >>>Japanese-language
> >>>license are official and,
> >>>- the translation from Japanese to English had been done by the
> >>>chair of the
> >>>project and me. And, the lawyer validated the translation.
> >>>
> >>>Could you confirm it and give me some comments if you find.
> >>>
> >>>Thanks,
> >>>Yutaka
> >>>
> >>>On 9/14/15 10:32, Yutaka MATSUBARA wrote:
> >>>>Hi Richard,
> >>>>
> >>>>Thank you for the results.
> >>>>
> >>>>The approval process for International License seems to be
> >>>>complicated, but I'll try to do it.
> >>>>
> >>>>>In the license-review discussion it was not fully clear (and is not
> >>>>>fully clear from examination of the TOPPERS project website[1])
> >>>>>whether the operative license for the project thus far has been the
> >>>>>English-language license submitted for legacy approval (though
> >>>>>twice-amended in the course of license-review discussion), or a
> >>>>>Japanese-language original of which the submitted English-language
> >>>>>text is an official (from the project's perspective) translation, or
> >>>>>perhaps both.
> >>>>
> >>>> From the TOPPERS project's perspective, both of the submitted
> >>>>English-language license and the Japanese-language license are
> >>>>official.
> >>>>
> >>>>>We ask the license submitter to clarify whether there is a
> >>>>>Japanese-language license that governs (exclusively or otherwise)
> >>>>>the
> >>>>>TOPPERS project. If so, we ask the license submitter to seek
> >>>>>approval
> >>>>>for that license as an 'International License' in accordance with
> >>>>>the
> >>>>>proposed procedure outlined by Mike Milinkovich on license-discuss
> >>>>>back in June:
> >>>>>https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2015-June/001857.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>One concern here is that we wouldn't want to approve an English
> >>>>>language version of a license (even if 'official') if there is
> >>>>>also an
> >>>>>official non-English counterpart license that has not specifically
> >>>>>undergone OSI review, because of the potential for confusion and the
> >>>>>possibility of substantive deviation from the Japanese-language
> >>>>>license text. It is conceivable that examination of the
> >>>>>non-English-language license would result in a conclusion that it is
> >>>>>not OSD-conformant even if there was also a conclusion that the
> >>>>>submitted English-language license is OSD-conformant.
> >>>>
> >>>>I understood your discussions and concerns about international
> >>>>licenses. According to the International License approval process, we
> >>>>would like to prepare and submit an affidavit for the TOPPERS
> >>>>License.
> >>>>
> >>>>May I have some questions about this?
> >>>>
> >>>>- Do you have a format or an example of the affidavit?
> >>>>- In our case, the translation from Japanese to English has been done
> >>>>by the chair of the project and me, a committee member of the
> >>>>project.
> >>>>And, the lawyer has been validated the translation. In our affidavit,
> >>>>is information (full name, contacts etc.) about the translators is
> >>>>enough? Or, information of the layer is needed as well?
> >>>>
> >>>>Thanks,
> >>>>Yutaka
> >>>>_______________________________________________
> >>>>License-review mailing list
> >>>>License-review at opensource.org
> >>>>https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
> >>>_______________________________________________
> >>>License-review mailing list
> >>>License-review at opensource.org
> >>>https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>License-review mailing list
> >>License-review at opensource.org
> >>https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
> >>
> >_______________________________________________
> >License-review mailing list
> >License-review at opensource.org
> >https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review