Re: Non-english license and documents
"Jamie Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, remember that there are four distinct parts to language comprehension. Reading, writing, listening, and speaking. Perhaps you feel I don't understand this, but as I deal with this on a daily basis, I assure you I understand this very well, more so then most monolingual people would. Indeed. Knowing more than one language really ensures this concept. I mentioned it only because you strangly mentioned speaking ability, when the questions were about written English. Reading is easier than writing, and listening is easier than speaking. Debatable. It very much depends on the person and how they learn a language. I'd argue that listening, and speaking are easier, then reading and writing. Don't believe me ? Watch children learn their first (or second) language, they always speak second, after listening first. Very different to "formal" language classes. I did not inted to rank the oral components against the written components. Look at my statement again, and you will see that we are in agreement. I have heard of some Japanese product manuals written entirely in transliterated English! (Using kana. This is a bit annoying to US importers of the product, who would prefer real English, or at the very least, transliterated English written in romaji. [Normal English speakers could probably guess the original English word often enough to understand the sentences.]) Well, the importer could a gotten a sample product first to determine if they would need to translate the manual themselves. Then we could debate which dialect of English should be used, that used in the Commonwealth and former colonies, or that used by the USA and former colonies. I was speaking about individuals who import. In this case the product was a video game system accessory. I was just pointing out an example of something that was basically in english, but that most english speaking people could not read. Just an amusing anecdote. Now, i'm not sure, but it is entirely possible that that the document used Japanese gramatical patterns, and chose to use words borrowed by the Japanese language whenever possible, such that Japanese consumers could read it with minimal difficulty. Just a bit strange overall really, as the manual could have been written in japanese anyway, since few English speeking people can read tranliterated English. This has been a fascinating learning experience for me. I've discovered that it seems that people believe that it is ok to insist on changing the language of a document into English, because they don't understand the language it is in. It also shows there is a widespread belief that most if not all Japanese understand English, so it is ok to remove Japanese documentation. I would say that there is no good reason to remove Japanese language manuals, except if they were out of date, and useless. Since the upstream is Japanese, I would highly doubt thay would be the case. However, I do suspect that in the absence of Japanese manuals, English manuals would be preferable for the Japanese over say French documentation. As for the licencing, I would say that generally English is the prefered language mostly because that is the language in which most Free software licences are written, as well as the language used by most Free Software developers. That does not mean that Japanese language licences are not acceptable, but merely inconvient. I assume that the author could in theory make the English document caniconical, and the Japanese version non-binding. Would this be corretct? As I understand it, in Japan, no. Of course that assumes the author is fluent in English, which may not be the case. That is one of the reasaons I said theoretically. It has been my experience that no English documents (excluding the constitution of Japan) have any legal status. Would your country (if it has one official language) accept documents written in another language, without a government certified translation ? Mine does not. To the best of my knowledge the United States does grudingly accept legal documents not written in English. Somewhat related: I would also not be too surprised if a judge upheld choice of law provisions, which could force the Court to accept annother language as acceptable for legal documents in the case that the chosen laws are not written in English. I'm not aware of cases where that has happened, as a judge would presumably first attempt to transfer the case to a court in the country whose law was chosen, as that court likely has some claim to jurisditcion anyway. But if the foreign court refused to accept the case, it is entirely possible that the case would procede under the US court. Back to the actual issue: I'm fairly sure that some European courts regularly must deal with legal documents in a language other than than that countries offical language, simply because no
Re: Non-english license and documents
On Wed, 2006-05-24 at 14:52 +0800, Ying-Chun Liu wrote: > Jamie Jones wrote: > > On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 13:27 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > > > >>On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 02:30:50PM +1000, Jamie Jones wrote: > >> > >>>In the event of any license related issues perhaps caused by > >>>mis-translation, the Japanese version is the canonical version that must > >>>be followed. > >> > >>Isn't this the case only if someone else than the author translated > >>the license? > > > > > > Based on my understanding of Japanese law, the original document being > > in Japanese is the one that is legally binding, even if the author makes > > an English translation. Other jurisdictions may accept a hypothetical > > English translation, but in the event of a dispute, the correct terms > > are in the Japanese version. > > > > IANAL, TINLA. > > Regards, > > Many of the non-English speaking countries only accept the law terms > written in their official languages. What should I do if I want to > package the software if the license in every files in the source tarball > is non-English? Should I paste the non-English license to debian-legal > for comments? Or should I ask the upstream author to remove the > non-English version and add an English one? What is the proper way? > > Thanks, > Ying-Chun Liu > You should do the exact same thing as if the license was written in English. You leave the license in the source, solicit feedback from -legal (which may take a while), and see if you can get an unofficial translation from a translation team. To be perfectly honest, had the license been written in English, you'd have never asked this question, would you ? Why is the process any different for other languages. Regards -- Jamie Jones Proprietor E-Yagi Consulting ABN: 32 138 593 410 Mob: +61 4 16 025 081 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.eyagiconsulting.com GPG/PGP signed mail preferred. No HTML mail. No MS Word attachments PGP Key ID 0x4B6E7209 Fingerprint E1FD 9D7E 6BB4 1BD4 AEB9 3091 0027 CEFA 4B6E 7209 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Non-english license and documents
On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 15:21 -0400, Joe Smith wrote: > "Jamie Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> Only if an adequate > >> English version was available [1], pruning the Japanese docs would be > >> an option IMO (and only because ~99.9% of Japanese people have good > >> command of English). > > > >You must have a very different experience of Japanese people then I do. > >If we talk percentages using my immediate family as an example, only 33% > >of them speak any English, and of that, only 16% would speak what is > >considered good English. Far less then the ~99.9% you quote. > > > >In short dropping the Japanese docs should not be an option even if an > >English version is available. > > Well, remember that there are four distinct parts to language comprehension. > Reading, writing, listening, and speaking. Perhaps you feel I don't understand this, but as I deal with this on a daily basis, I assure you I understand this very well, more so then most monolingual people would. > > Reading is easier than writing, and listening is easier than speaking. Debatable. It very much depends on the person and how they learn a language. I'd argue that listening, and speaking are easier, then reading and writing. Don't believe me ? Watch children learn their first (or second) language, they always speak second, after listening first. Very different to "formal" language classes. > I suspect that some of your family can understand English far better than > they can produce it. Yes, that's the 17% that don't speak good English. While it is common for most Japanese to attend an English class, that by no means enables them to understand it, after all, it is not the language they use to carry out their daily duties. > > Japanese's relationship with English is complicated. There is regular > English, transliterated English, > and several transliterated English words have been adopted by the Japanese > language. I really see no difference between how Japanese and English languages evolve. They both adopt useful words from other languages, sometimes changing the meaning in the process. > > I have heard of some Japanese product manuals written entirely in > transliterated English! (Using kana. This is a bit annoying to > US importers of the product, who would prefer real English, or at the very > least, transliterated English written in romaji. [Normal English speakers > could probably guess the original English word often enough to understand > the sentences.]) > Well, the importer could a gotten a sample product first to determine if they would need to translate the manual themselves. Then we could debate which dialect of English should be used, that used in the Commonwealth and former colonies, or that used by the USA and former colonies. This has been a fascinating learning experience for me. I've discovered that it seems that people believe that it is ok to insist on changing the language of a document into English, because they don't understand the language it is in. It also shows there is a widespread belief that most if not all Japanese understand English, so it is ok to remove Japanese documentation. In the words of an exasperated Japanese person I know while stuck trying to express themselves in English "What makes English so fucking great ? I have my language too!" What I'd like these people to do for a moment is assume you speak a language other then English as your only language, say an East-Asian one, Chinese, Japanese or Korean. Now, you are packaging some software, but the license is in English. Do you insist the author re-write the license in your language and remove the English version? Why/Why Not ? -- Jamie Jones Proprietor E-Yagi Consulting ABN: 32 138 593 410 Mob: +61 4 16 025 081 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.eyagiconsulting.com GPG/PGP signed mail preferred. No HTML mail. No MS Word attachments PGP Key ID 0x4B6E7209 Fingerprint E1FD 9D7E 6BB4 1BD4 AEB9 3091 0027 CEFA 4B6E 7209 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Non-english license and documents
On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 15:22 -0400, Joe Smith wrote: > "Jamie Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Based on my understanding of Japanese law, the original document being > >in Japanese is the one that is legally binding, even if the author makes > >an English translation. Other jurisdictions may accept a hypothetical > >English translation, but in the event of a dispute, the correct terms > >are in the Japanese version. > > I assume that the author could in theory make the English document > caniconical, > and the Japanese version non-binding. Would this be corretct? As I understand it, in Japan, no. Of course that assumes the author is fluent in English, which may not be the case. It has been my experience that no English documents (excluding the constitution of Japan) have any legal status. Would your country (if it has one official language) accept documents written in another language, without a government certified translation ? Mine does not. Regards -- Jamie Jones Proprietor E-Yagi Consulting ABN: 32 138 593 410 Mob: +61 4 16 025 081 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.eyagiconsulting.com GPG/PGP signed mail preferred. No HTML mail. No MS Word attachments PGP Key ID 0x4B6E7209 Fingerprint E1FD 9D7E 6BB4 1BD4 AEB9 3091 0027 CEFA 4B6E 7209 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Non-english license and documents
"Jamie Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Based on my understanding of Japanese law, the original document being in Japanese is the one that is legally binding, even if the author makes an English translation. Other jurisdictions may accept a hypothetical English translation, but in the event of a dispute, the correct terms are in the Japanese version. I assume that the author could in theory make the English document caniconical, and the Japanese version non-binding. Would this be corretct? IANAL, TINLA. Regards, -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-english license and documents
Jamie Jones wrote: > On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 13:27 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > >>On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 02:30:50PM +1000, Jamie Jones wrote: >> >>>In the event of any license related issues perhaps caused by >>>mis-translation, the Japanese version is the canonical version that must >>>be followed. >> >>Isn't this the case only if someone else than the author translated >>the license? > > > Based on my understanding of Japanese law, the original document being > in Japanese is the one that is legally binding, even if the author makes > an English translation. Other jurisdictions may accept a hypothetical > English translation, but in the event of a dispute, the correct terms > are in the Japanese version. > > IANAL, TINLA. > Regards, Many of the non-English speaking countries only accept the law terms written in their official languages. What should I do if I want to package the software if the license in every files in the source tarball is non-English? Should I paste the non-English license to debian-legal for comments? Or should I ask the upstream author to remove the non-English version and add an English one? What is the proper way? Thanks, Ying-Chun Liu -- PaulLiu(Ying-Chun Liu) E-mail address:[EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Non-english license and documents
"Jamie Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Only if an adequate English version was available [1], pruning the Japanese docs would be an option IMO (and only because ~99.9% of Japanese people have good command of English). You must have a very different experience of Japanese people then I do. If we talk percentages using my immediate family as an example, only 33% of them speak any English, and of that, only 16% would speak what is considered good English. Far less then the ~99.9% you quote. In short dropping the Japanese docs should not be an option even if an English version is available. Well, remember that there are four distinct parts to language comprehension. Reading, writing, listening, and speaking. Reading is easier than writing, and listening is easier than speaking. When reading or listening a complete understanding of the language's syntax is not necessary. Also understanding subtle nuances of the language are usually far more important for writing and speaking than for reading and listening. I suspect that some of your family can understand English far better than they can produce it. Japanese's relationship with English is complicated. There is regular English, transliterated English, and several transliterated English words have been adopted by the Japanese language. I have heard of some Japanese product manuals written entirely in transliterated English! (Using kana. This is a bit annoying to US importers of the product, who would prefer real English, or at the very least, transliterated English written in romaji. [Normal English speakers could probably guess the original English word often enough to understand the sentences.]) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-english license and documents
On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 13:27 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 02:30:50PM +1000, Jamie Jones wrote: > > In the event of any license related issues perhaps caused by > > mis-translation, the Japanese version is the canonical version that must > > be followed. > > Isn't this the case only if someone else than the author translated > the license? Based on my understanding of Japanese law, the original document being in Japanese is the one that is legally binding, even if the author makes an English translation. Other jurisdictions may accept a hypothetical English translation, but in the event of a dispute, the correct terms are in the Japanese version. IANAL, TINLA. Regards, -- Jamie Jones Proprietor E-Yagi Consulting ABN: 32 138 593 410 Mob: +61 4 16 025 081 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.eyagiconsulting.com GPG/PGP signed mail preferred. No HTML mail. No MS Word attachments PGP Key ID 0x4B6E7209 Fingerprint E1FD 9D7E 6BB4 1BD4 AEB9 3091 0027 CEFA 4B6E 7209 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Non-english license and documents
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 02:30:50PM +1000, Jamie Jones wrote: > In the event of any license related issues perhaps caused by > mis-translation, the Japanese version is the canonical version that must > be followed. Isn't this the case only if someone else than the author translated the license? -- 1KB // Microsoft corollary to Hanlon's razor: // Never attribute to stupidity what can be // adequately explained by malice. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-english license and documents
On Mon, 2006-05-22 at 22:10 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 10:32:18PM +0800, Ying-Chun Liu wrote: > > Second, the javadoc documents coming with the source files are Japanese. > > Should I prune the documents or include them? How do I include them? > > Please, keep them. Removing documentation is a disservice to the > users, even if only a part of them can read it. I second keeping them. > Only if an adequate > English version was available [1], pruning the Japanese docs would be > an option IMO (and only because ~99.9% of Japanese people have good > command of English). You must have a very different experience of Japanese people then I do. If we talk percentages using my immediate family as an example, only 33% of them speak any English, and of that, only 16% would speak what is considered good English. Far less then the ~99.9% you quote. In short dropping the Japanese docs should not be an option even if an English version is available. > > But in every *.java (source code) the license is written in > > Japanese (same as the license shown on the Japanese page). Because > > I'm not good at Japanese, so I can't make sure the license in > > Japanese is free or not. Is there any way to deal with the problem > > without asking the upstream author to change the source files? > > FTPmasters and our debian-legal mavens tend to REALLY look down upon > removing license notices from source files. If we have a license in > English that came from the author (and thus is legally binding), the > Japanese copy is harmless, and it will get compressed away by tar|gz > so disk space is not a concern as well. Of course, let's have a > Japanese-speaking person take a look at the text, but IMHO you don't > need to bother about any accuracy higher than "this looks to be the > same as the English version". In the event of any license related issues perhaps caused by mis-translation, the Japanese version is the canonical version that must be followed. Regards, -- Jamie Jones Proprietor E-Yagi Consulting ABN: 32 138 593 410 Mob: +61 4 16 025 081 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.eyagiconsulting.com GPG/PGP signed mail preferred. No HTML mail. No MS Word attachments PGP Key ID 0x4B6E7209 Fingerprint E1FD 9D7E 6BB4 1BD4 AEB9 3091 0027 CEFA 4B6E 7209 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Non-english license and documents
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 10:10:47PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 10:32:18PM +0800, Ying-Chun Liu wrote: > > Second, the javadoc documents coming with the source files are Japanese. > > Should I prune the documents or include them? How do I include them? > Please, keep them. Removing documentation is a disservice to the > users, even if only a part of them can read it. Only if an adequate > English version was available [1], pruning the Japanese docs would be > an option IMO (and only because ~99.9% of Japanese people have good > command of English). Wow, so the Japanese Debian developers we have that are reticent to communicate with the project in the English language are in the bottom .1% of the population? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Non-english license and documents
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 10:32:18PM +0800, Ying-Chun Liu wrote: > Second, the javadoc documents coming with the source files are Japanese. > Should I prune the documents or include them? How do I include them? Please, keep them. Removing documentation is a disservice to the users, even if only a part of them can read it. Only if an adequate English version was available [1], pruning the Japanese docs would be an option IMO (and only because ~99.9% of Japanese people have good command of English). > Should I seperate to another binary package like libjlha-java-doc(-jp)? Do they take half a megabyte or more? Is the package a dependence of something very popular? If no, increasing the size of "Packages" by over 1KB per binary package would more than kill all potential benefits of the split. > But in every *.java (source code) the license is written in > Japanese (same as the license shown on the Japanese page). Because > I'm not good at Japanese, so I can't make sure the license in > Japanese is free or not. Is there any way to deal with the problem > without asking the upstream author to change the source files? FTPmasters and our debian-legal mavens tend to REALLY look down upon removing license notices from source files. If we have a license in English that came from the author (and thus is legally binding), the Japanese copy is harmless, and it will get compressed away by tar|gz so disk space is not a concern as well. Of course, let's have a Japanese-speaking person take a look at the text, but IMHO you don't need to bother about any accuracy higher than "this looks to be the same as the English version". Cheers and schtuff, 1KB. [1] I hope that only few of you seen Polish perl manpages once shipped with PLD. Unless somehow Mommy lied to me about my native language, there must be something really wrong with those docs, as I couldn't comprehend them at all. Gods be praised for ssh and the English version of the mans. -- 1KB // Microsoft corollary to Hanlon's razor: // Never attribute to stupidity what can be // adequately explained by malice. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
