On 1/17/06, Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Scripsit Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Yes. Furthermore, given that the license notice should not be > > translated, I would suggest that the use of gettext on the license > > notice strings is a bug. > > I am not convinced that the _copyright notice_ (i.e. "This program is > free software, etc, etc", in contrast from the actual text of the GPL) > should not be translated. > > It would seem to be in the spirit of the GPL that if a user has > selected a German locale (indicating that he is more comfortable with > seeing messages in Germal), he should best be told _in his preferred > language_ that the program he is using is free. > > The precise legal definition of the freedoms is not something to be > lightly translated, but I think that the short informational statement > that some relevant freedoms exist is a good candidate for translation. > > Technically, the statement we're talking about is probably the one > required by GPL #2(c) - notice in particular that 2(c) does not > require any specific wording of the notice. There seems to be nothing > in 2(c) that implies that the notice cannot be given in the user's > preferred language.
You could include a copy of the license notice in English and <other language> and allow them to both be viewed. I think that is safest. Andrew -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
