This thread demonstrates precisely why I loathe licensing. But I digress, please continue.
On Thu, 2011-12-01 at 09:28 +0100, Andre Klapper wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 09:44 -0500, Tiffany Antopolski wrote:
> > The manual is being rewritten using Mallard. Chris Beiser, a
> > google-code-in student worked on this. He is including some material
> > from the docbook version, which is why he requested a licence change.
> > The new mallard docs will be available in 3.4.
>
> Have the licenses of the translations been checked, and if translators
> explicitly put them under GFDL have translators been contacted to also
> double-license the translations, or put them "under the same license"?
>
> Asking because I had the same problem (reusing some material from the
> docbook verson) with the Evolution manual rewrite.
Wow, good point. I had never thought of that issue. We don't really
track the license of any of our translations, docs or UI, except by
just saying "It's under the same license as the parent module." And
that can be complicated by modules with complicated licenses. Have
any translators ever read the COPYING file in yelp-xsl?
I'd say that, if the original translator of the DocBook manual isn't
around and working on the Mallard help, then translation teams should
probably start from scratch on their translations.
But don't teams use translation memories that they share across team
members and across projects? Doesn't that also introduce a potential
for reusing copyrighted translations in places where you don't have
permission to do so?
--
Shaun
_______________________________________________
gnome-doc-list mailing list
gnome-doc-list gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-doc-list