-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
larry@garfieldtech.com schrieb:
- Anything in Drupal CVS is under the GPL. The copyright is held by
all kinds of people, but the license is the GPL. That includes all translatable strings.
- A translation is a derivative work of the work being translated. In
this case, the work being translated is Drupal.
- Derivative works of a GPLed work must be distributed under the GPL if
they are distributed.
4apply.
4a) If that is the case, then neither the original string nor the translation of it are subject to copyright and so a copyright notice is inappropriate.
4b) If that is not the case, then the original text is copyrighted its original author and released under the GPL and the translation, as a derivative work, must also be under the GPL. Claiming a copyright on the translation is valid, but it still must be distributed under the GPL.
Thanks!
Drupal's CVS policy is to not state a copyright or authorship on anything, since most code gets so many people working on it that separating out who did what is infeasible. Commit messages should specify credit. Therefore, po files in CVS should follow the same convention as code: Don't specify an author or a copyright or a license in the file itself and let the packaging system add a LICENSE.txt file as appropriate.
While I agree, this is a bit impractical. The copyright notices in the PO files are usually added by the PO translator software. While it is possible to remove them (man vi), most translators might not know how.
In fact, our own extractor.php adds this to the header of the files:
$output = "# LANGUAGE translation of Drupal (". $file .")\n"; $output .= "# Copyright YEAR NAME EMAIL@ADDRESS\n";
Since they do not claim something that is not true, I suggest to ignore them.
Cheers, Gerhard
A brilliant answer (on the whole copyright issue) and insight (on impracticality of removing the notice). Thank you *very* much Larry and Gerhard!
Cheers,
Mori
Gerhard Killesreiter wrote:
larry@garfieldtech.com schrieb:
- Anything in Drupal CVS is under the GPL. The copyright is held by
all kinds of people, but the license is the GPL. That includes all translatable strings.
- A translation is a derivative work of the work being translated. In
this case, the work being translated is Drupal.
- Derivative works of a GPLed work must be distributed under the GPL if
they are distributed.
4apply.
4a) If that is the case, then neither the original string nor the translation of it are subject to copyright and so a copyright notice is inappropriate.
4b) If that is not the case, then the original text is copyrighted its original author and released under the GPL and the translation, as a derivative work, must also be under the GPL. Claiming a copyright on the translation is valid, but it still must be distributed under the
GPL.
Thanks!
Drupal's CVS policy is to not state a copyright or authorship on anything, since most code gets so many people working on it that separating out who did what is infeasible. Commit messages should specify credit. Therefore, po files in CVS should follow the same convention as code: Don't specify an author or a copyright or a license in the file itself and let the packaging system add a LICENSE.txt file as appropriate.
While I agree, this is a bit impractical. The copyright notices in the PO files are usually added by the PO translator software. While it is possible to remove them (man vi), most translators might not know how.
In fact, our own extractor.php adds this to the header of the files:
$output = "# LANGUAGE translation of Drupal (". $file .")\n"; $output .= "# Copyright YEAR NAME <EMAIL@ADDRESS>\n";Since they do not claim something that is not true, I suggest to ignore them.
Cheers, Gerhard
_______________________________________________ translations mailing list translations@drupal.org http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/translations
-
Gerhard Killesreiter -
Mori Sugimoto