Re: Licenses of .po files, and translations

[Behdad Esfahbod <behdad behdad org>]

Gora Mohanty wrote:
> Yes, the copyright undoubtedly belongs to the translator. The
> question involves licensing terms. If the .pot file was under
> the GPL, is the .po file a derivative work, and hence under
> the GPL, too? A secondary question is, if an existing .po
> file, which is explicitly licensed under the GPL, is added to
> by another translator, is the new translation also under the
> GPL?

IANAL, but there's not much room for one's personal opinion here.  The PO
file, no matter how many translators touch it, is definitely a derivative work
of the source code, via the POT file.  The evidence: pieces of the source code
(namely the strings) are still in there, how can this not be a derivative
work?!  Given that, if the source code is GPL'ed, there's no choice left for
the translator.  If he or she distributes the derived work (that is, the
translation) in a license other than GPL it's a violation of the GPL.

There is belief misconception that if someone contributes for an existing
work, he gets to choose under which license his contributions are.  This is
definitely true, but the choices he has are most of the time very, very, limited.

behdad

> My opinion would be yes, in both cases, though it is much less
> clear in the first case. There, since the strings are derived
> from the source code, and since the .pot file says that the
> licence is the same as that for the base package, my opinion
> is that if the application is under the GPL, so is the .pot file.
> 
> Maybe we should get a legal opinion on this.
> 
> Regards,
> Gora
> _______________________________________________
> gnome-i18n mailing list
> gnome-i18n gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n
>