On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 10:26 PM, C. Scott Ananian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Jonas Smedegaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 11:41:41AM -0400, C. Scott Ananian wrote: >>>John Gilmore has been pushing us to get our licensing ducks in a row. >>>The one remaining problem has been activities and content bundles: we >>>can't legally distribute bundles that don't have a clear statement of >>>license. >> >> There is also licensing problems in some PO-files. >> >> POT-files should replace PACKAGE with actual package name. >> >> PO-files should include both proper copyright and licensing info. > > Could you suggest a patch to > http://dev.laptop.org/git/projects/image-builder or a stand-alone > script that could audit for such problems? > > I believe most of our po files are generated/maintained by a Pootle > instance; Sayamindu, is patching Pootle to check for reasonable > license information feasible? That would address the problem at the > source. > --scott
I'll talk with the Pootle developers to figure out the best way to do this. If they have a patch, or if the solution is easy enough, I'll patch our Pootle installation ASAP (we already have a Pootle upgrade coming up - I'm waiting for upstream to declare the RC as final). Thanks, Sayamindu -- Sayamindu Dasgupta [http://sayamindu.randomink.org/ramblings] _______________________________________________ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar