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
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part