Re: Yoruba, Hausa and Igbo (yo, ha, ig) po files

[James Vasile <vasile softwarefreedom org>]

Luis Villa wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 8:25 AM, Dave Neary <dneary gnome org> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Andre Klapper wrote:
> > > This is about http://www.gnome.org/~tthurman/yo-ha-ig/ .
> > > These are .po files extracted from a Nigerian distro called "Wazobia
> > > Linux".
> > > Several KDE and GNOME applications were translated into the three
> > > languages in the subject line, a user has found a disk image, extracted
> > > the .mo files, decompiled them to .po and sent them to Thomas Thurman.
> > ...
> > > So to me it boils down to the question: "Can we just take the .po files
> > > without asking anybody?" and (like Johannes wrote earlier) "if a
> > > translation can be considered a derived work."
> > I think Johannes has almost asked the right question.
> >
> > The question is whether translating an application results in a derived
> > work. Am I missing something, or isn't the answer obviously yes?
> >
> > *If* the translated application is derived from the original, then if
> > the original application is GPL, you can just take the .po file, and
> > credit the person/people who did the translation. If the app is LGPL,
> > the same thing applies. For any BSD-type licence, you'll need
> > confirmation from Wazobia that their translations were released under
> > the same licence.
>
> I *think* (though I will check with SFLC shortly to make sure) that
> this is not the case. Just because it *should* have been released
> under GPL doesn't mean it *is* released under GPL, or that we can
> treat it that way. It is still under 'their' copyright until either
> they or a court agree that it should be GPL as a remedy for the
> violation.
>
> > This seems like the kind of thing that the FSF and the SFLC have
> > probably thought about already.
>
> Possibly, though I've never heard of a case of abandonware translations before.


I've been included in the middle of this thread, so the following
lacks context and is a bunch of general statements (as opposed to
being specific legal advice about the situation and files currently
being discussed).  Still, I think I can help.

If a work containing a bunch of strings is GPL-licensed, then those
strings are also GPL-licensed.

If you take a bunch of strings from a copyrighted work, translate them
and then assemble them into a .po file, you have, in non-trivial
cases, created a derivative work.

Works derived from GPL-licensed works are not *automatically*
GPL-licensed.  There are a number of reasons for this, both legal,
textual and political.  Suffice it to say, though, that while the GPL
gives you rights to things that are GPL, it says nothing about what
*is* GPL.  There are consequences to releasing some code as non-GPL,
but those consequences do not include your code being GPL-licensed
automatically.

In short, Luis is right as a general matter.

All of that said, it sounds like there's context here that matters.
Luis, if you want to give me a call, I can give you a more considered
opinion.

Hope this helps,
James