[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: kde-i18n-doc
Subject: Re: Moving towards SPDX Compliant Copyright Statements in PO Files
From: "Josep M. Ferrer" <txemaq () saragata ! net>
Date: 2022-11-04 18:55:30
Message-ID: b52394dc-3bb1-edd0-0408-fdf8e0534a8e () saragata ! net
[Download RAW message or body]
El 3/11/22 a les 13:47, Andreas Cord-Landwehr ha escrit:
> Hi, following up the discussion in the separate thread ("reuse compliance and
> imported po/"), I need some input about the practical steps to achieve this.
>
> At [1] I have a merge-request prepared that updates Lokalize to:
> - understand both, the "old" copyright statements and the "new" SPDX copyright
> statements
> - changes to SPDX copyright statements per default
>
> The technical change here is the simple part, but we have to look into the
> translation workflow, where I am not an expert. Essentially, we have two main
> questions on table:
>
> a) Is it acceptable to have a transition phase where we have both kinds of
> copyright statements inside PO files because translators of the same file use
> different tools/different versions of tools that do not yet all support SPDX
> based statements? (please also say if there are more tools additional to
> Lokalize, GTranslator and Poedit that we have to look at)
From my POV, it's no necessary the transition phase: a single PO file
must have the traditional copyright statement or the SPDX copyright
statement, but no both. But other translation teams may have a different
needs.
I've just tested an option in Pology suite
(https://invent.kde.org/sdk/pology):
$ posieve set-header -scopyright:'SPDX-FileCopyrightText: 2021, 2022 Foo
Name <foo@kde.org>' akonadi_knut_resource.po
And changed the old copyright statement to SPDF copyright. So, it's OK.
> b) Is it acceptable to only support forward migration from "old" to "new"
> copyright statements and not the way back?
Also, from my POV, our team only need the forward migration.
>
> And actually, are you OK with going towards SPDX based copyright statements
> our do you have any fundamental concerns? As Harald already said, it would be
> a very big help for our automatic license/copyright check tooling because most
> of the code already is ported to SPDX based statements.
I have some concerns:
1) Some distros will ship a new Lokalize version in a year or two, with
the SPDF compliant copyright statement. So, this movement will be slow.
2) At some point, when all teams use SPDF compliant copyright
statements, there will be PO files with old copyright statements ( some
PO files untouched since a decade or more, or inactive teams). I
understand there will be a massive migration. Is this assumption correct?
Thanks!
Josep M. Ferrer
>
> Best regards,
> Andreas
>
> [1]https://invent.kde.org/sdk/lokalize/-/merge_requests/22
>
> PS: Yes, I deliberately only said "copyright" and not "license" for now,
> because "license statements" will be a quite harder problem to tackle because
> it is probably not a syntactical but a semantic change...
>
>
[Attachment #3 (text/html)]
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">El 3/11/22 a les 13:47, Andreas
Cord-Landwehr ha escrit:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:3609112.c0G71DlXAV@behemoth">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Hi, following up the discussion in the \
separate thread ("reuse compliance and imported po/"), I need some input about the \
practical steps to achieve this.
At [1] I have a merge-request prepared that updates Lokalize to:
- understand both, the "old" copyright statements and the "new" SPDX copyright
statements
- changes to SPDX copyright statements per default
The technical change here is the simple part, but we have to look into the
translation workflow, where I am not an expert. Essentially, we have two main
questions on table:
a) Is it acceptable to have a transition phase where we have both kinds of
copyright statements inside PO files because translators of the same file use
different tools/different versions of tools that do not yet all support SPDX
based statements? (please also say if there are more tools additional to
Lokalize, GTranslator and Poedit that we have to look at)</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>From my POV, it's no necessary the transition phase: a single PO
file must have the traditional copyright statement or the SPDX
copyright statement, but no both. But other translation teams may
have a different needs.</p>
<p>I've just tested an option in Pology suite
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" \
href="https://invent.kde.org/sdk/pology">https://invent.kde.org/sdk/pology</a>):</p> \
<p><span style="font-family:monospace"><span \
style="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;">$ posieve set-header \
-scopyright:'SPDX-FileCopyrightText: 2021, 2022 Foo
Name </span><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" \
href="mailto:foo@kde.org"><foo@kde.org></a>' akonadi_knut_resource.po<br> \
</span></p> <p>And changed the old copyright statement to SPDF copyright. So,
it's OK.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:3609112.c0G71DlXAV@behemoth">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
b) Is it acceptable to only support forward migration from "old" to "new"
copyright statements and not the way back?</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Also, from my POV, our team only need the forward migration.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:3609112.c0G71DlXAV@behemoth">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
And actually, are you OK with going towards SPDX based copyright statements
our do you have any fundamental concerns? As Harald already said, it would be
a very big help for our automatic license/copyright check tooling because most
of the code already is ported to SPDX based statements.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>I have some concerns:</p>
<p>1) Some distros will ship a new Lokalize version in a year or
two, with the SPDF compliant copyright statement. So, this
movement will be slow.</p>
<p>2) At some point, when all teams use SPDF compliant copyright
statements, there will be PO files with old copyright statements (
some PO files untouched since a decade or more, or inactive
teams). I understand there will be a massive migration. Is this
assumption correct? <br>
</p>
<p>Thanks!</p>
<p>Josep M. Ferrer<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:3609112.c0G71DlXAV@behemoth">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
Best regards,
Andreas
[1] <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" \
href="https://invent.kde.org/sdk/lokalize/-/merge_requests/22">https://invent.kde.org/sdk/lokalize/-/merge_requests/22</a>
PS: Yes, I deliberately only said "copyright" and not "license" for now,
because "license statements" will be a quite harder problem to tackle because
it is probably not a syntactical but a semantic change...
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic