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

List:       kde-i18n-doc
Subject:    Re: Translations, Qt, and licensing
From:       Albert Astals Cid <aacid () kde ! org>
Date:       2009-04-30 20:36:29
Message-ID: 200904302236.31496.aacid () kde ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

A Dimarts, 28 d'abril de 2009, Gordon Schumacher va escriure:
> 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??)

You can read PACKAGE and kdeqt package as Qt, so that'd be LGPL for those 
files.

> 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...)

Yeah well, it's not easy coordinating so much translators that don't know nor 
don't want to know about licensing, that's why we use the 
"This file is distributed under the same license as the foo package."

> 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.

Read my other message, i doubt this counts as a derivative work, the original 
text is just there for reference, but actually the file should probably be Qt 
compatible since we are shipping and loading it on runtime. The fact that is 
compatible doesn't mean it has to be LGPL compatible, since it could very well 
be GPL.

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

Doubt so, but you can try.

> (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"...)

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