[okfn-discuss] French translation

[Rufus Pollock]

My french is only so-so (!) but what you've got there now definitely
looks better. We'll aim to have this up on the
http://www.opendefinition.org site soon.

Thanks once again for all your help.

Rufus

2009/2/24 Jérôme Beau <javarome at gmail.com>:
> 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 <rufus.pollock at okfn.org>
>>
>> 2009/2/21 Jérôme Beau <javarome at gmail.com>:
>> > 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
>
>