El dijous, 19 de juliol de 2018, a les 11:08:10 CEST, Maximiliano Curia va escriure: > ¡Hola Albert! > > Thanks for the follow up. > > El 2018-07-19 a las 00:32 +0200, Albert Astals Cid escribió: > > 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 problem with this kind of copyright assignment is that it's not machine > readable (a line with a name is very hard to distinguish from a piece of > text), and tools like decopy, licensecheck, scancode, etc will simply ignore > the list of authors. So, if you are going to change this format, please > consider adding a "Copyright: " to the list of authors, then this would > become: > > # Copyright: Zayed Al-Saidi <some_email>, 2009. > # Copyright: Abdalrahim G. Fakhouri <some_other_email>, 2014.
That's not possible, the Copyright line gets added by third party tools we do not control, and even if we updated Lokalize (the tool "most" of our translators use) *today*, it wouldn't get to them until years later thanks to how distribution of applications in Linux works at this time. Cheers, Albert > > Which is easily detectable by any of the mentioned tools. > > > 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? > > I agree that deleting the second line and "inheriting" the license from a > LICENSE or COPYING file is clearer than what's currently being shipped. And > from my part I would welcome such a change. > > Happy hackings, >
