Re: Unification of free software disclaimers

[Yavor Doganov <yavor doganov org>]

[It seems that the discussion is going on at that bug; however, I
don't feel qualified enough to comment there so I'll write here.]

Александър Шопов wrote:
> 
> For example, these will become:
> This program is free software; you can
> This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful
> GNU General Public License along with this program

I agree here, it should be the standard one.

However, I think that it's important to have translated licences since
a lot of people don't speak English at all and these people are part
of our common target group, provided:
 
	* These translations include the official translation
          disclaimer both in English and translated;
	* Ideally, the original English licence is included or,
          better, a link or something else pointing to it;
	* This refers to the docs module as well, not only to the
          "About" boxes;
	* We're talking only about the FSF licences.  GNOME is part of
          the GNU Project and uses the copyleft licences that FSF has
          created.  The other less common ones just don't matter.

The Bulgarian translation of the GPL sucks [1] entirely due to our
fault, as we failed to organise as a translation team to produce a
decent one and thus are referring to a 3rd party translation.  I've
been told that some languages have the licences properly translated so
this is not a reason not to mark them as translatable.

[1] FYI, I've removed the links to the GPL/FDL translations from
www.gnu.org, the amended pages should appear shortly.

-- 
In the GNU Project, discrimination against proprietary software is not
just a policy -- it's the principle and the purpose.  Proprietary
software is fundamentally unjust and wrong, so when we have the
opportunity to place it at a disadvantage, that is a good thing. --RMS