[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: Johnny Jazeix <jazeix () gmail ! com>
Date: 2022-11-10 12:11:01
Message-ID: CAEtcAPFpsHrL3T-Fqbn1_tx0hv5Nt-RfCnSJbaL+v=krzqizwQ () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
Hi,
Le mer. 9 nov. 2022 =C3=A0 18:54, Andreas Cord-Landwehr <cordlandwehr@kde.o=
rg> a
=C3=A9crit :
> Hi Josep,
>
> thank you for the feedback! So I understand, the typical use case is that
> are
> is usually only one (active) translator per PO file. So, for those files
> we do
> not have to bother with old format copyright statements and simply can
> switch.
>
>
Not necessary. For example, when there are bugs, it's not always the usual
translator that fixes it.
For French team, I don't think we have any issue with the change. Can there
be any issue with teams using the summit worflow?
On my side, I think it would be nice at some point to have a script that
applies the change to all the po files in KDE to use the SPDX statements so
we don"t have the discrepancy with unmaintained files.
Cheers,
Johnny
Regarding your concerns:
> 1) At least for Lokalize it should be super easy to provide it via Flatpa=
k
> and
> similar tools to enable translators on older/slower moving distros to
> easily
> use a modern version once PO files default to SPDX format.
> 2) If we have old and new copyright format in the same file or even with
> statements of the same author, this should be easily to fix by an update
> script. I can gladly support/provide such a script to help in this
> conversion.
>
At the moment, my main concern is to get the needed applications ready to
> be
> able to start introducing SPDX based copyright information per default. A=
s
> I
> understand you, it is not a problem if we already now turn the switch in
> Lokalize to update copyright to SPDX for everybody who is using a very ne=
w
> version of Lokalize (so, the version in which the reference patch is firs=
t
> released).
>
> If anybody else as concerns and remarks, please raise them. Since Gears
> feature freeze is already tomorrow, I am afraid that this change in
> Lokalize
> will be a topic for the 23.04 release anyways.
>
> Cheers,
> Andreas
>
> On Freitag, 4. November 2022 20:01:46 CET Josep M. Ferrer wrote:
> > 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 int=
o
> 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 too=
ls
> > > additional to Lokalize, GTranslator and Poedit that we have to look a=
t)
> >
> > 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 differen=
t
> > needs.
> >
> > I've just tested an option in Pology suite
> > (https://invent.kde.org/sdk/pology):
> >
> > $ posieve set-header -scopyright:'SPDX-FileCopyrightText: 2021, 2022 Fo=
o
> > 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 correc=
t?
> >
> > 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)]
<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div>Hi,</div><div><br></div><br><div \
class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Le mer. 9 nov. 2022 Ã 18:54, \
Andreas Cord-Landwehr <<a \
href="mailto:cordlandwehr@kde.org">cordlandwehr@kde.org</a>> a écrit \
:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px \
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi Josep,<br> <br>
thank you for the feedback! So I understand, the typical use case is that are <br>
is usually only one (active) translator per PO file. So, for those files we do <br>
not have to bother with old format copyright statements and simply can switch.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Not necessary. For example, when there are bugs, \
it's not always the usual translator that fixes it.</div><div> </div><div>For \
French team, I don't think we have any issue with the change. Can there be any \
issue with teams using the summit worflow?<br></div><div>On my side, I think it would \
be nice at some point to have a script that applies the change to all the po files in \
KDE to use the SPDX statements so we don"t have the discrepancy with \
unmaintained files.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div><br></div><div>Johnny</div><div><br></div><blockquote \
class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid \
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> Regarding your concerns:<br>
1) At least for Lokalize it should be super easy to provide it via Flatpak and <br>
similar tools to enable translators on older/slower moving distros to easily <br>
use a modern version once PO files default to SPDX format.<br>
2) If we have old and new copyright format in the same file or even with <br>
statements of the same author, this should be easily to fix by an update <br>
script. I can gladly support/provide such a script to help in this \
conversion.<br></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px \
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> At the moment, my \
main concern is to get the needed applications ready to be <br> able to start \
introducing SPDX based copyright information per default. As I <br> understand you, \
it is not a problem if we already now turn the switch in <br> Lokalize to update \
copyright to SPDX for everybody who is using a very new <br> version of Lokalize (so, \
the version in which the reference patch is first <br> released).<br>
<br>
If anybody else as concerns and remarks, please raise them. Since Gears <br>
feature freeze is already tomorrow, I am afraid that this change in Lokalize <br>
will be a topic for the 23.04 release anyways.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Andreas<br>
<br>
On Freitag, 4. November 2022 20:01:46 CET Josep M. Ferrer wrote:<br>
> El 3/11/22 a les 13:47, Andreas Cord-Landwehr ha escrit:<br>
> > Hi, following up the discussion in the separate thread ("reuse \
compliance<br> > > and imported po/"), I need some input about the \
practical steps to<br> > > achieve this.<br>
> > <br>
> > At [1] I have a merge-request prepared that updates Lokalize to:<br>
> > - understand both, the "old" copyright statements and the \
"new" SPDX<br> > > copyright statements<br>
> > - changes to SPDX copyright statements per default<br>
> > <br>
> > The technical change here is the simple part, but we have to look into \
the<br> > > translation workflow, where I am not an expert. Essentially, we \
have two<br> > > main questions on table:<br>
> > <br>
> > a) Is it acceptable to have a transition phase where we have both kinds \
of<br> > > copyright statements inside PO files because translators of the same \
file<br> > > use different tools/different versions of tools that do not yet \
all<br> > > support SPDX based statements? (please also say if there are more \
tools<br> > > additional to Lokalize, GTranslator and Poedit that we have to \
look at)<br> > <br>
> From my POV, it's no necessary the transition phase: a single PO file<br>
> must have the traditional copyright statement or the SPDX copyright<br>
> statement, but no both. But other translation teams may have a different<br>
> needs.<br>
> <br>
> I've just tested an option in Pology suite<br>
> (<a href="https://invent.kde.org/sdk/pology" rel="noreferrer" \
target="_blank">https://invent.kde.org/sdk/pology</a>):<br> > <br>
> $ posieve set-header -scopyright:'SPDX-FileCopyrightText: 2021, 2022 Foo<br>
> Name <<a href="mailto:foo@kde.org" target="_blank">foo@kde.org</a>>' \
akonadi_knut_resource.po<br> > <br>
> And changed the old copyright statement to SPDF copyright. So, it's OK.<br>
> <br>
> > b) Is it acceptable to only support forward migration from "old" \
to "new"<br> > > copyright statements and not the way back?<br>
> <br>
> Also, from my POV, our team only need the forward migration.<br>
> <br>
> > And actually, are you OK with going towards SPDX based copyright<br>
> > statements<br>
> > our do you have any fundamental concerns? As Harald already said, it \
would<br> > > be a very big help for our automatic license/copyright check \
tooling<br> > > because most of the code already is ported to SPDX based \
statements.<br> > <br>
> I have some concerns:<br>
> <br>
> 1) Some distros will ship a new Lokalize version in a year or two, with<br>
> the SPDF compliant copyright statement. So, this movement will be slow.<br>
> <br>
> 2) At some point, when all teams use SPDF compliant copyright<br>
> statements, there will be PO files with old copyright statements ( some<br>
> PO files untouched since a decade or more, or inactive teams). I<br>
> understand there will be a massive migration. Is this assumption correct?<br>
> <br>
> Thanks!<br>
> <br>
> Josep M. Ferrer<br>
> <br>
> > Best regards,<br>
> > Andreas<br>
> > <br>
> > [1]<a href="https://invent.kde.org/sdk/lokalize/-/merge_requests/22" \
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://invent.kde.org/sdk/lokalize/-/merge_requests/22</a><br>
> > <br>
> > PS: Yes, I deliberately only said "copyright" and not \
"license" for now,<br> > > because "license statements" \
will be a quite harder problem to tackle<br> > > because it is probably not a \
syntactical but a semantic change...<br> <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div></div></div>
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic