Hello Bruno and Simon,
# coreutils-5.2.1.af.po. # Copyright (C) 2004 Free Software Foundation,
Inc. # This file is distributed under the same license as the PACKAGE
package. # Petri Jooste <rkw...@puknet.puk.ac.za>, 2004.
Coreutils or gnulib? GPL or LGP?
I've hand-edited the PO files in latest/ so that at least the first
header line speaks of gnulib. (These ancient PO files were apparently
produced by msmerging against a coreutils or some other PO file.)
I'm CCing Benno, the TP coordinator. Benno, is there a way to guarantee that
the translations of gnulib-l10n.pot are under LGPLv2+ ?
For updates and new submissions of PO files, I can make it so that
the robot enforces that a certain line is present among the leading
comment lines. I propose this line:
# This file is published under the LGPLv2+ license.
Would that do?
As for the existing PO files... I cannot simply change the license
line, even when it is incoherent.
But... maybe Bruno can do something in the POT file? Maybe add an
"X-License: LGPLv2+" or "PO-License: LGPLv2+" line, so that merged
PO files will contain this line. Would that be legally valid?
For translators who have sent a disclaimer to the FSF, this is probably a
non-issue, but what about the other translators?
The gnulib domain requires a disclaimer, so all translators that
have uploaded a PO file for gnulib have signed a disclaimer.
Re the license of gnulib. For the purpose of these translations, LGPLv2+
should be used. What is not clear to me is: where should this be stated?
Should the formula "under the same license as the gnulib package" be avoided
in this case?
When the robot is forced to look for the above-mentioned license
comment line, I can also make it so that the robot checks that
the line "under the same license as the gnulib package" is _not_
present.
--
Regards,
Benno
