El dissabte, 14 de juliol de 2018, a les 15:04:11 CEST, Luigi Toscano va escriure: > Maximiliano Curia ha scritto: > > ¡Hola Luigi! > > > > El 2018-07-14 a las 10:37 +0100, Chris Lamb escribió: > >>> My interpretation of this is that the intention is to assign the copyright > >>> to the kde project, although it's not a hundred percent clear. > > > >> I should have been clearer, sorry — I understand you are going with > >> whatever the file says but I am requesting that you make this clearer, > >> perhaps by getting a statement from upstream or similar. > > > >> "This_file_is_part_of_KDE" is really not suitable as an author, > >> whatever the file says, after all. > > > > Chris raised the issue of the po files distributed by kde containing some > > (not > > very clear) template parts, in particular the copyright assignments to > > This_file_is_part_of_KDE. > > I'm not sure that's a copyright assignment. Usually we have the FLA for that: > https://ev.kde.org/rules/fla.php > > I suspect that it was a replacement of the standard copyright assignation to > the FSF which was there in the early days but it really did not fit. > I tracked it back to this change, from 2006 (the string was later changed to > used underscores instead of spaces): > https://websvn.kde.org/?view=revision&revision=505466 > > The message is probably incorrect (without copyright is all reserved, not > public domain) but it has been like that for a while. > > I'm not sure I'm allowed to decide if it's a copyright assignment or not. I'm > probably going to ask the board of the KDE e.V., as it is a legal question. > I added Albert Astal Cid, who is and has been in charge of in the i18n team > more than me, he was part of the board in the past, and maybe we can discuss > what to do.
Yes, there is a long standing issue with the translations of the .po files that carry not really good copyright information most of the times. Let's see a sample header like ar/messages/kdegraphics/okular_mobi.po # Copyright (C) YEAR This_file_is_part_of_KDE # This file is distributed under the same license as the PACKAGE package. # Zayed Al-Saidi <some_email>, 2009. # Abdalrahim G. Fakhouri <some_other_email>, 2014. The first one is the one you mentioned, personally i think we can just delete the first line (or change them to "For Copyright see the individual names below"), they are "worthless/wrong" and if people use the "right" tools for translation their copyright is added after those lines, i.e. lines 3 and 4. The second line is also wrong, what is "PACKAGE"? In my opinion now that we ship the translations as part of the application tarballs themselves it's clear-ish that unless otherwise stated in the file, the files are under the copyright stated in the COPYING file so we may as well delete those lines too. Opinions? Cheers, Albert > > > > With your kde i18n team hat on, would you consider it feasible to replace > > these strings with something clearer? > > > > If the intention is for the translators to assign the copyright to kde it > > should be assigned to KDE.e.V, if the intention is for each translator to > > keep > > the copyright assignment the This_file_is_part_of_KDE part of the template > > needs to be updated to say AUTHOR <EMAIL>. > > > > The first case should be "scriptable" the second case, would need to > > manually > > modifying each po file that contains the "This_file_is_part_of_KDE" text. > > As I said, I don't think it's the first case, but I can ask to the e.V. > > If it's going to be the second case, I don't think that's practical when the > list of authors is still in the file. Shouldn't a string like > Copyright (C) the respective authors (see below) > work? Or something more legally fitting. > > > Finally, a request: please lower the severity of this bug. It's not a > regression, and I would assume good faith on something that has been the same > for the past 10+ years, without having a "serious" bug in the middle. > > Ciao >
