[License-review] For Approval: MulanOWL BY v1; MulanOWL BY-SA v1; MulanOWL BY-PL v1; MulanOWL BY-PL-SA v1

[Carlo Piana]

> Da: "Joseph Donahue" <joseph at odonahue.com>
> A: "license-review at lists.opensource.org" <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> Inviato: Giovedì, 9 marzo 2023 2:20:16
> Oggetto: Re: [License-review] For Approval: MulanOWL BY v1; MulanOWL BY-SA v1;
> MulanOWL BY-PL v1; MulanOWL BY-PL-SA v1

> How does that work exactly? A Chinese fluent licensee can read and understand
> it's terms and rely on them completely, but an English fluent licensee cannot?
> The fact this clause is deemed to be needed is concerning to me. I am not a
> lawyer, but I would think they should both be legally enforceable and I am not
> sure how that works. Seems the OSI would need some strong non-computerized
> interpreters to ensure both versions are consistent. Do they have resources for
> that?
Answer: no and it is not our task. 

Quite on the contrary, the presence of the clause renders it unnecessary, since in case of discrepancy one of them prevails. Actually it was I who pointed out its need. It is always a big mess when you have two equivalent versions, I have direct experience since it's a requirement for a client of mine (all contracts and deeds in general must be bilingual). 

Just a thought experiment. Think if version A requires you to paint the wall black. Version B to make it red. Can both of them apply at the same time? 

Now think if X paints it black and Y paints it red. W mixes them, what would the wall be? Stripes? A de-saturated and darker red? Half and half in vertical? Horizontal? Would a mesh of colors comply with either versions of the license? 

This in my recollection is why Creative Commons abandoned the nationalized versions. 

Cheers 

K 

> [ https://stackexchange.com/users/3795089/jwdonahue ]
> On 2/10/2023 1:23 AM, 卢遥 via License-review wrote:

>> In case of divergence between the Chinese and English versions
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily
> those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the Open Source
> Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.

> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20230310/f1ad9da9/attachment.html>