GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 438348
License problems in po files
Last modified: 2014-08-31 12:43:16 UTC
There are two po files with GPL license: http://svn.gnome.org/viewcvs/atk/trunk/po/mr.po?revision=1162&view=markup http://svn.gnome.org/viewcvs/atk/trunk/po/tk.po?revision=1162&view=markup And two po files without license: http://svn.gnome.org/viewcvs/atk/trunk/po/hr.po?revision=1162&view=markup http://svn.gnome.org/viewcvs/atk/trunk/po/vi.po?revision=1162&view=markup
Lets see if localization coordinators can handle this.
Humm, l10n can use a general component...
Reaffecting to "other" component
Here is the standard header used in French GNOME translation team: # Copyright (C) 2003-2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. # This file is distributed under the same license as the @PACKAGE@ package. @PACKAGE@ being replaced by current package name. This has the advantage of not redefining the license (keeping translations GPL with GPL modules, LGPL with LGPL modules, and so on).
Let me see if I understood it correctly. Should we (translators) leave a literal @PACKAGE@? Currently in the pt_BR l10n team we use these lines but write something like "... the ATK package."
No, you should replace @PACKAGE@ by the real package name. Your current practice is entirely correct.
Hello I've been using for several years now the following header # Copyright © 2006, 2007 pessulus # This file is distributed under the same license as the pessulus package. Differs from the above one given by Claude where it assigns copyright to the package and not to FSF. I believe this is the correct way to do it as we grant to the package maintainers the possibility to relicense the package without requesting our permission or, if we become unreachable on the specified email, forcing maintainer to discar the translation. On the other hand, I think that granting translation copyright to FSF is invalid unless the translator has an agreement with FSF. As such, seems that the only valid alternative to granting copyright to the package is to keep it for the translator himself. I think all this header discussion was conducted on the list some 5 years ago but I'm not sure and not able to find it on the archives/google. On a side note, I always convert the (c) to © as .po files are should support UTF-8 and it's a more correct glyph to put on the header. Am I wrong on the way I do the headers? Should we get some legal folks opinion here?
You cannot grant copyright to someone else if you don't sign any paper. That's all. There has been some discussion about copyright on foundation-list in the last few weeks, so you can read the thread, even if it's not about translations.
(In reply to comment #3) > Reaffecting to "other" component I've split this up into separate bug reports: mr: bug #553151 tk: bug #553152 hr: bug #553153 vi: bug #553154 Perhaps this will help the issue get attention by the respective translation teams.
As all of the component bugs but one are fixed, can this ticket be closed?
(In reply to comment #10) > As all of the component bugs but one are fixed, can this ticket be closed? The TK bug report is open (since 2008).
That is exactly what I meant by "all but one". As that TK is open as it's own ticket in bug #553152, does keeping this bug open continue to serve any purpose? At this point in time, isn't this effectively a duplicate of #553152 ?
Closing as per comment 12 (which is correct).