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, f
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
> l
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." is absolutely clear.
Yes, I thought so too, but wanted to verify it, as
I had never heard of an earlier inst
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
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
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 i
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
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 l
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 els
