Thanks for the feedback Rufus. I did found some differences between the autoritative version and the one I used as a basis for translation. This now fixed. Feel free to let me know if it looks now better to you.
2009/2/23 Rufus Pollock <[email protected]> > 2009/2/21 Jérôme Beau <[email protected]>: > > I posted a first version at http://rr0.org/okd/annotated > > (there is no link to the page wherever except in this message to the > list. I > > just posted it as a web page for formating convenience). > > This looks great Jérôme. Once we've got this finalized we can upload > the translation to the relevant page on the > http://www.opendefinition.org/ with a link back to you. > > > It seems to be that some errors remains in the original OKD licence, due > to > > elements taken from the Open Software Definition (OSD) : in the sentence > of > > item 9, it says that "The rights attached to the work must apply to all > to > > whom the *program* is redistributed". I guess the program should be > replaced > > by the *work*, no? Same in "closing up *software* by indirect means such > as > > requiring a non-disclosure agreement." where software should be replaced > by > > work. > > Hmm, these are typos in the annotated version. I think these have been > corrected in the main, authoritative version at: > > http://www.opendefinition.org/1.0/ > > We have also merged the 'comments' into the main version (so the > annotated version can be deprecated at some point to avoid these kind > of issues). > > Would you mind taking a quick look at the authoritative version and > checking your synced with that? > > Rufus >
_______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
