httpd-docs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tetsuya Kitahata <>
Subject Re: ja translation [LICENSE]
Date Fri, 22 Aug 2003 00:58:04 GMT


(I moved the *thread* here, in order to CC to licensing@apache)

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 22:45:07 +0200 (CEST)
(Subject: Re: ja translation new comer)
Dirk-Willem van Gulik <> wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

> > >I think the "license" file could be one of the controversial
> > >issues, regarding the "accuracy" of the translation. If you
> > >need "assurance" of the quality of the translation, I am
> > >willing to put the confirmation of laywers in japan (my friends),
> > >sooner or later.
> >
> > This has come up - from the perspective that the license may not
> > be enforceable in some jurisdictions without the native translation.
> > At some point translations might become necessary.

> Eh - you want to be preceice here; generally when you have two
> entities who are both in X then you want to make sure that their
> agrement is constructed according to X law and habits. If the entities
> are in X and Y then generally the law and language of the license
> granter is used (or the Seller, etc - there is a whole international
> law framework specially for this). So, say, a German developer using
> the GPL for his code , may well need a german version. We may have
> this issue when we accept code from a third party in Germany.

> However... the apache end user license is 'special' in that it is an
> agreement with the Apache Software Foundation, a Delaware, US Inc to
> some other entity. So for _us_ (not for the general open source case)
> we are fine with a License written in the US langauge and within the
> US framework - and though it is nice to have translations to _explain_
> the license; the authoritative document of the Apache Software
> Foundation is, and will be, in US English only.

Yes, yes.

The Apache Software Foundation is based on Delaware, so
the judicial jurisdiction of the lawsuit between the ASF
and third parties should be "Delaware, USA" and Code should be in
conformity to the Law of Delaware. In this situation, ASL written
in English *only* will be used in general.
# This is *ASF* vs. third party case

And, the judicial jurisdiction of the lawsuit between a company in Japan
(Software Vendor/ using software which contains products derived
from ASL) and that in Germany (End User) will be described
in their agreement when they make a contract. "lex causae" might
be also implied in their agreement. In this situation, ASL written
in English is "authoritative" and (in general) written in German and
Japanese languages (translations) will be used for reference.
# This is third party vs. third party case

And, the judicial jurisdiction of the lawsuit between two company based
on Japan (Software Vendor/ using software which contains products
derived from ASL and End User) will be "Japan". "lex causae" will be
Japanese Laws with no doubt. (To be precise, they can choose whatever
they want in the agreement ... though) In this situation, ASL written
in English is "authoritative" and (in general) written in Japanese
language (translation) will be used for reference... However,
from the view of *normal business practice*, ASL written in Japanese
will be authoritative compared to the case described above 2),
because they've read ASL in Japanese when they make a contract with
each other. They can not fall into an error in the process of the
interpretation of the ASL.
# This is third party vs. third party case, too.


# Especially case 3) ... 2) in some cases

In normal business practice, end users do not want to read license
agreement in English. (Power politics of vendors vs. end users :)
They (especially, vendors) want/need Japanese translated one, because
end users tend not to adopt any software products which only have
documents written in English as well as license. And, if there's
no translation (for reference), vendors or end users have to
translate ASL in their own way... there will be *many* subspecific
japanized/germanized ASL!! ;-)

In this situation, formal translation (not authoritative), formalized
by the ASF, can be important in order to make their business more
facilitated and less controversial.


In my mind, this below can make sense:

1. AUTHORITATIVE: ASL written in English
2. FORMAL TRANSLATIONS: ASL written in other languages and formalized
   by the ASF
3. INFORMAL TRANSLATIONS: derivatives not formalized by the ASF


So, I want to make LICENSEs translated into Japanese and any
other languages, and want them to be formalized by the ASF.
(Also, put them in the sites for reference)

Make sense?

Tetsuya Kitahata --  Terra-International, Inc. (based on Hawaii ;-)

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message