Hi Thomas, On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 10:57:14AM -0500, Thomas Thurman wrote: > Ysgrifennodd Marcel Telka: >> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 09:43:51PM -0500, Thomas Thurman wrote: >>> Maybe in future we need to make the gettext tools enforce a rule that >>> the header block of a .po file contains licence information, instead >>> of assuming it's okay to leave it in the comments. >> >> Then we should also enforce compiler (gcc) to add license information to >> binaries... >> >> Do we really want that? > > Yes, I'd like that too. Actually, it would be really useful to warn > people linking non-GPL binaries against GPL libraries. > > But I don't think the cases are parallel. You can't point some tool at > a compiled binary and get the source code back. You can throw .mo files > at msgunfmt and get *almost* the original .po back, but lacking the
You could do this with assembler source code too :-). Lack of a tool to do it with C/C++/whatever is not a reason :-). I think both cases ARE parallel. > comments; if the comments are just comments, that's fine because they're > just hints to humans, but if they contain actual useful metadata, Are we considering copyright info as an "useful metadata"? If I want I could add my own comments to a po file with another kind of "useful" metadata. In general, all comments could be considered "useful metadata". > there's no reason that metadata shouldn't live in the header block along > with the metadata we already carry, like contact email address and name > of the last translator. Good point. Do we need such data in the header? For what purposes? Do we have something similar in C/C++ (compiled, sources)? The answer is no :-). > > Honestly, the only metadata that *needs* to be in the header block is > the content encoding; everything else is for human convenience (author > name and contact details could live in comments as licence data already > does, date can be figured out from source control, project can be > figured out from the place the .po or .mo file is found, language team > can be figured out from the pathname and the project name). There's no > reason not to add another field to the mix to stop cases like this from > happening again. Exactly. There is no reason to keep such data in po file. What about get rid off of that data? To clarify: I am not voting against adding copyright data into the header, nor voting for removing some data from there. I am just showing that there could be also other possible view... ... and, I am voting for no change. :-) Have a nice day. -- +-------------------------------------------+ | Marcel Telka e-mail: mar...@telka.sk | | homepage: http://telka.sk/ | | jabber: mar...@jabber.sk | +-------------------------------------------+ _______________________________________________ gnome-i18n mailing list gnome-i18n@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n
