On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 11:02 -0700, Thomas Chung wrote: > On 3/16/07, Thomas Canniot <thomas canniot laposte net> wrote: > > > > > Well, I don't know if translating a licence can be considered as valid. > > In French, a licence / law translation is not considered as valid due to > > numerous misinterpretations. > > True. I would suggest to check with Max and Red Hat Legal Counsel. We've discussed the translation of legal content before. The problem is more than just one of languages. Laws must be translated (interpreted), and in many cases, the legal provisions may not apply the same in all countries. That is the main catch -- a language /= a country. The CLA, for example, is written to be legally binding in only one country, despite how many countries speak/read English as a primary language. A process to translate documents so they could be legally useful (or even binding) might look like this: 1. Trusted translators make initial translation - For Red Hat, it might be best if they used their translation staff 2. The original and translation are read by a lawyer who reads both languages, who understands the original documents intents, and who understands the local laws. This person most likely needs to be licensed to practice law in the target country. 3. Iterate. 4. Result - one, new, translated document that is legally binding in one new country. If you want to take the translation and apply it to another country, start from Step 2. and proceed. The cost per country is not-trivial. Anyway, the main point is, this is not something Fedora can do. We don't have lawyers or resources to hire foreign lawyers. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41 ////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part