Re: Licenses of .po files, and translations

["Axel Hecht" <l10n moz googlemail com>]

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 <annajonna gmail com>:
> 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
> the untranslated .po file.
> The work of the translators are completely independent of
> the source.
> Also copyright owners may change their minds and change
> license and or terms. Thus translators that were translating
> free software may find that their work is being used in
> non-free software as well.
> Because of this, I would like to explicitly specify GPL as
> the license of the .po files I translate.
> If other translators would like to translate the same software
> under a different license, they are free to do that, because
> the .pot file and the .po files are just a template to be
> filled out with translations of sentences into a
> particular language. Copyright would only hold for the work
> as a whole, and as long as there is a difference in the
> in the translation as a whole, they would have to be considered
> as two separate works, with the similarity beign the template
> dot po file.
>
> This is my personal view on this.
>
> --
> Anna Jonna Ármannsdóttir coordinator
> The Icelandic GNOME Localisation team
> http://l10n.gnome.org/teams/is was 11% translated
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnome-i18n mailing list
> gnome-i18n gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n
>
>