Subject: WG: AW: For Approval: German Free Software License
From: "Axel Metzger" <metzger@mpipriv-hh.mpg.de>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 18:56:27 +0100

 Mon, 29 Nov 2004 18:56:27 +0100
Hello Russell + list,

I didn't find the time to answer to the other points you are criticizing. Now
I had some moments to think about them.

>Note that there are other problems with the license.  For one, Section
>9(1) is also a problem.  It should put the onus on you to get the text
>of the license correct by saying "... Should, however, differences
>arise, then if one language license says that you are free to do
>something, but the other says that you are not, then you are free to
>do it."  That will reassure monolingual users of the software.

This would be the simple user friendly approach. One could consider this. Are
you proposing the insertion of an additional rule in section 9 (1)?

>For another, Section 1(2) uses bad English: the passive voice.  You
>should say "You are" instead of "It is".

Thanks.

>For yet another, in the definition of "Entitled Person", does German
>Law really restrict use of a program?  Or does it restrict copying?
>Also, "exclusive right to use for the Program" is not good English,
>and as such forms an ambiguity.  You really should have a native
>English speaking lawyer review this license.

The one who has the funds to pay this could afterwards save the rest of the
world. Sorry for joking - we are thankful for the advices concerning the
language. Please note that we have already made some efforts to create
something like a multilateral license world. That doesn't mean that we cannot
get better. I either don't like the translation of "Nutzungsrecht" as "right
to use". We should think about this. It's on the list.

Axel