[License-review] CeCILL license V2.1 for Approval
perrin at apotheon.com
Fri Apr 6 17:16:01 UTC 2012
On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 03:09:58PM -0500, Karl Fogel wrote:
> Chad Perrin <perrin at apotheon.com> writes:
> >> This sort of thing goes on all the time in bilingual countries such as
> >> Canada, and in all national courts that have to interpret treaties
> >> and U.N. conventions.
> >It seems, then, that to qualify as an open source license it would need
> >to do so not only in both languages but in any mix of conditions where
> >the two disagree, to account for possible interpretations in court. That
> >sounds like a mess to try to untangle.
> Well, in theory. But in practice, the language question is actually the
> least of my worries -- the other questions (about 6.4, 6.2, 7, and 11.1)
> are probably more important for our purposes here anyway.
To the extent that terms in another language could override terms in the
language you're evaluating, though, they're equally important -- and vice
versa, and so on.
. . . but yeah, I guess the smart way to handle it is to nail down the
terms in one language first, then those in the other later, and see about
integration issues after that.
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
More information about the License-review