Re: Licenses of .po files, and translations
Axel Hecht skrev: FWIW, in the Mozilla project, we consider translations to be derivative work. Which is what we consider, I wouldn't know that any lawyer looked at it for us. It is/may be derivative work, but the copyright to a translation belongs to the translator by default. Since it is or may be derivative, the translator mostly can't do whatever she likes with the translation, but nobody else can do anything with the translation unless the translator says so. BR, Gudmund Axel 2008/9/21 Anna Jonna Armannsdottir [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On fös, 2008-09-12 at 22:26 +0530, Gora Mohanty wrote: Thus, as I see it, for an application licensed under the GPL, the .pot files, and the .po files are also GPL-licensed. Your argument seems to be that the source of those files is the GPL ed source. This only holds for th pot file and the untranslated .po file. The work of the translators are completely independent of the source. Also copyright owners may change their minds and change license and or terms. Thus translators that were translating free software may find that their work is being used in non-free software as well. Because of this, I would like to explicitly specify GPL as the license of the .po files I translate. If other translators would like to translate the same software under a different license, they are free to do that, because the .pot file and the .po files are just a template to be filled out with translations of sentences into a particular language. Copyright would only hold for the work as a whole, and as long as there is a difference in the in the translation as a whole, they would have to be considered as two separate works, with the similarity beign the template dot po file. This is my personal view on this. -- Anna Jonna Ármannsdóttir coordinator The Icelandic GNOME Localisation team http://l10n.gnome.org/teams/is was 11% translated ___ gnome-i18n mailing list gnome-i18n@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n ___ gnome-i18n mailing list gnome-i18n@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n ___ gnome-i18n mailing list gnome-i18n@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n
Re: Licenses of .po files, and translations
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 10:53:21 +0200 Gudmund Areskoug [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Axel Hecht skrev: FWIW, in the Mozilla project, we consider translations to be derivative work. Which is what we consider, I wouldn't know that any lawyer looked at it for us. It is/may be derivative work, but the copyright to a translation belongs to the translator by default. Since it is or may be derivative, the translator mostly can't do whatever she likes with the translation, but nobody else can do anything with the translation unless the translator says so. Yes, the copyright undoubtedly belongs to the translator. The question involves licensing terms. If the .pot file was under the GPL, is the .po file a derivative work, and hence under the GPL, too? A secondary question is, if an existing .po file, which is explicitly licensed under the GPL, is added to by another translator, is the new translation also under the GPL? My opinion would be yes, in both cases, though it is much less clear in the first case. There, since the strings are derived from the source code, and since the .pot file says that the licence is the same as that for the base package, my opinion is that if the application is under the GPL, so is the .pot file. Maybe we should get a legal opinion on this. Regards, Gora ___ gnome-i18n mailing list gnome-i18n@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n
Re: Licenses of .po files, and translations
Gora Mohanty wrote: Yes, the copyright undoubtedly belongs to the translator. The question involves licensing terms. If the .pot file was under the GPL, is the .po file a derivative work, and hence under the GPL, too? A secondary question is, if an existing .po file, which is explicitly licensed under the GPL, is added to by another translator, is the new translation also under the GPL? IANAL, but there's not much room for one's personal opinion here. The PO file, no matter how many translators touch it, is definitely a derivative work of the source code, via the POT file. The evidence: pieces of the source code (namely the strings) are still in there, how can this not be a derivative work?! Given that, if the source code is GPL'ed, there's no choice left for the translator. If he or she distributes the derived work (that is, the translation) in a license other than GPL it's a violation of the GPL. There is belief misconception that if someone contributes for an existing work, he gets to choose under which license his contributions are. This is definitely true, but the choices he has are most of the time very, very, limited. behdad My opinion would be yes, in both cases, though it is much less clear in the first case. There, since the strings are derived from the source code, and since the .pot file says that the licence is the same as that for the base package, my opinion is that if the application is under the GPL, so is the .pot file. Maybe we should get a legal opinion on this. Regards, Gora ___ gnome-i18n mailing list gnome-i18n@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n ___ gnome-i18n mailing list gnome-i18n@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n
Re: Licenses of .po files, and translations
Em Seg, 2008-09-22 às 10:53 +0200, Gudmund Areskoug escreveu: It is/may be derivative work, but the copyright to a translation belongs to the translator by default. Since it is or may be derivative, the translator mostly can't do whatever she likes with the translation, but nobody else can do anything with the translation unless the translator says so. If it's derivative work, it's copyrighted by the translators as well as those who wrote the strings in the source code. And if it's derivative work from GPL'ed software, it's GPL'ed as well. But it's simpler to say under the same license as the ... package. -- Leonardo Fontenelle http://leonardof.org ___ gnome-i18n mailing list gnome-i18n@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n
Re: Licenses of .po files, and translations
On fös, 2008-09-12 at 22:26 +0530, Gora Mohanty wrote: Thus, as I see it, for an application licensed under the GPL, the .pot files, and the .po files are also GPL-licensed. Your argument seems to be that the source of those files is the GPL ed source. This only holds for th pot file and the untranslated .po file. The work of the translators are completely independent of the source. Also copyright owners may change their minds and change license and or terms. Thus translators that were translating free software may find that their work is being used in non-free software as well. Because of this, I would like to explicitly specify GPL as the license of the .po files I translate. If other translators would like to translate the same software under a different license, they are free to do that, because the .pot file and the .po files are just a template to be filled out with translations of sentences into a particular language. Copyright would only hold for the work as a whole, and as long as there is a difference in the in the translation as a whole, they would have to be considered as two separate works, with the similarity beign the template dot po file. This is my personal view on this. -- Anna Jonna Ármannsdóttir coordinator The Icelandic GNOME Localisation team http://l10n.gnome.org/teams/is was 11% translated signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ gnome-i18n mailing list gnome-i18n@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n
Re: Licenses of .po files, and translations
FWIW, in the Mozilla project, we consider translations to be derivative work. Which is what we consider, I wouldn't know that any lawyer looked at it for us. Axel 2008/9/21 Anna Jonna Armannsdottir [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On fös, 2008-09-12 at 22:26 +0530, Gora Mohanty wrote: Thus, as I see it, for an application licensed under the GPL, the .pot files, and the .po files are also GPL-licensed. Your argument seems to be that the source of those files is the GPL ed source. This only holds for th pot file and the untranslated .po file. The work of the translators are completely independent of the source. Also copyright owners may change their minds and change license and or terms. Thus translators that were translating free software may find that their work is being used in non-free software as well. Because of this, I would like to explicitly specify GPL as the license of the .po files I translate. If other translators would like to translate the same software under a different license, they are free to do that, because the .pot file and the .po files are just a template to be filled out with translations of sentences into a particular language. Copyright would only hold for the work as a whole, and as long as there is a difference in the in the translation as a whole, they would have to be considered as two separate works, with the similarity beign the template dot po file. This is my personal view on this. -- Anna Jonna Ármannsdóttir coordinator The Icelandic GNOME Localisation team http://l10n.gnome.org/teams/is was 11% translated ___ gnome-i18n mailing list gnome-i18n@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n ___ gnome-i18n mailing list gnome-i18n@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n
Licenses of .po files, and translations
Hi, I need a clarification on the licensing of .po files. As per my understanding, both the .pot template files, and the .po files for individual languages, assert copyright, and licence restrictions, with the usual licensing terms being the same as for the package itself. Thus, as I see it, for an application licensed under the GPL, the .pot files, and the .po files are also GPL-licensed. Therefore, the following requirements ensue for a GPLed application: (a) A distribution with local-language translations of the application is obliged to provide, upon request, copies of the source .po file for each language. (b) Any modifications to existing .po file translations for any language also automatically fall under the GPL. I would like to hear whether people agree with this. Regards, Gora ___ gnome-i18n mailing list gnome-i18n@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n
Re: Licenses of .po files, and translations
Le vendredi 12 septembre 2008 à 22:26 +0530, Gora Mohanty a écrit : Hi, I need a clarification on the licensing of .po files. As per my understanding, both the .pot template files, and the .po files for individual languages, assert copyright, and licence restrictions, with the usual licensing terms being the same as for the package itself. Thus, as I see it, for an application licensed under the GPL, the .pot files, and the .po files are also GPL-licensed. Therefore, the following requirements ensue for a GPLed application: (a) A distribution with local-language translations of the application is obliged to provide, upon request, copies of the source .po file for each language. (b) Any modifications to existing .po file translations for any language also automatically fall under the GPL. I would like to hear whether people agree with this. Yes, completely agree. The sentence This file is distributed under the same license as the package package. is absolutely clear. If you suspect license violation, your first approach should be to ask friendly for correction and source publication. Secondly, if you see no results, the case could be escalated to a higher level. Our beloved Luis Villa (member of GNOME Board of Directors) could be of some help in this situation. But legal action should be a last resort solution. HTH Claude ___ gnome-i18n mailing list gnome-i18n@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n
Re: Licenses of .po files, and translations
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 23:08:13 +0200 Claude Paroz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Yes, completely agree. The sentence This file is distributed under the same license as the package package. is absolutely clear. Yes, I thought so too, but wanted to verify it, as I had never heard of an earlier instance of such a thing. Thanks for your input. If you suspect license violation, your first approach should be to ask friendly for correction and source publication. [...] But legal action should be a last resort solution. Most definitely. We want to get things resolved, and not fight endless, and resource-consuming legal battles. Regards, Gora ___ gnome-i18n mailing list gnome-i18n@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n
