[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-i18n-doc
Subject:    Re: Translations, Qt, and licensing
From:       Gordon Schumacher <gordon () rebit ! com>
Date:       2009-04-28 14:40:03
Message-ID: 49F71543.8080100 () rebit ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

At Mon, 27 Apr 2009 20:51:55 +0200, Albert Astals Cid wrote:

> http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy has a policy for
> translations, but Qt strings are not part of that.
>
> No idea who told you in IRC the translations are LGPL but i doubt it, i mean
> each team is free to use the licenses they want (if they are compatible) so
> there's no single licensing.
>
> So your best bet would be approaching each of the individual team leaders of
> teams you want to reuse and ask them to get a license statement for that file.
>
> Other thing would be having a look at the file header, but i'm not sure if
> everybody updates it correctly.
>   

Indeed, a big thank you to the Korean team for keeping this
up-to-date...!  The rest of the kdeqt.po files all still contain the
unhelpful boilerplate "This file is distributed under the same license
as the PACKAGE package." (except for Irish Gaelic, which refers to the
kdeqt package - which I don't think exists??)

I would think that it would probably be to everyone's benefit if the
comment was up-to-date - for third parties so that there is no
confusion, and for the KDE teams because it would greatly strengthen
their copyright/licensing claims.  (IANAL, but I can't help but think
that having an inaccurate/incomplete copyright notice isn't as good as
having one properly completed...)

I'm also unclear that someone could license *the entire file* under
anything but a Qt-compatible license, since by necessity approximately
half the file is actually under Trol^H^H^H^HNokia's copyright.

So - any chance I can convince the translation teams to update that
header?  c(-:

(I have indeed sent off e-mails to the teams responsible for the
languages I'm particularly interested in at the moment, but it seems
like it would just be a good idea to "fix it right"...)
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]