<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/6/2019 1:03 AM, Carlo wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:8758dd37-e375-90b6-a332-cf8002d2ac80@piana.eu">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">On 06/12/19 01:23, Josh Berkus wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">On 12/4/19 1:31 AM, zhou minghui wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">As for your criticism, I totally understand your angle. However, you may
understand we did that for a reason. We intended to make it easier for
Chinese developers to read and understand, not inducing legal issues
they don't want. After all, we have about ten million developers in
China, who are desperate to develop their software in open source
fashion. And they represent thousands of companies that may boost the
Internet technologies. They are not against English at all (we are in
the same earth village, and we are applying for OSI approval here), but
a Chinese version make them understand what they are licensed and
license to.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I think Carlo was arguing that this license should state that the
Chinese version is authoritative. Certainly that would make sense to me.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Thanks Josh for spotting the point. Pretty much so. **One** version
should be authoritative, IMHO. Which one, that's up to the author of the
license to decide.
Suppose one contributor picks the English and another, for an unrelated
project, the Chinese, and the two differ substantially due to a glitch
in the translation. And a third party combines them. It's a minor hiccup
here, as it's no copyleft, yet it's unnecessary added entropy. Which one
applies? You would have two inbound and most of all two outbound
licenses in a superstate, with the same name and different legal
consequences.
Again, not a big issue, rather a matter of elegance and "ecology".
</pre>
</blockquote>
Would it be possible to make one version authoritative is some
countries and the other authoritative in the rest of the world? You
could says something like "the Chinese version is the official
version in China, Hong Kong, etc. and the English version is the
official version in the other countries of the world." If you said
that the Chinese version was authoritative everywhere, and then
litigate the license in the US, the Chinese version will need to be
translated to English. You might then end up with a <i>different</i>
translation than the version written in English. <br>
<br>
But you would want it very clear how it was divided. I would not say
something like "Chinese-speaking countries" because then you get
into arguments about what that means - is the United States a
Chinese-speaking country because it has a sizable Chinese-speaking
population? (We have no official language in the United States.)<br>
<br>
Just suggesting it - does this create problems I'm not seeing?<br>
<br>
Pam<br>
<br>
Pamela S. Chestek<br>
Chestek Legal<br>
PO Box 2492<br>
Raleigh, NC 27602<br>
919-800-8033<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.chesteklegal.com">www.chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<br>
</body>
</html>