Ubuntu Sverige

Jag fick följande e-post från Canonical.
Vad säger ni?


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Daniel,

I'm emailing you since you're one of most active and helpful
contributors on rosetta-users list, and I'd like to have input from
you on licensing issues. And besides, I remember you being concerned
about translation licensing issues as well.


Since we've had a lot of public discussion already, we came to a
solution we'd like to implement, and before going ahead, I'd now
appreciate direct feedback from you.


Our final idea is pretty simple:

1. Make clear and prominent notice to translators that all of their
contributions will be under BSD license, and they will keep
copyright over them: we'll also clarify this on our /legal page
2. Make clear that any PO files distributed by Rosetta are
(c)Canonical Ltd. only in the context of compilation: i.e. entire
*aggregation* of translations otherwise copyrighted by translators
themselves; these exported files will be BSD-licensed. We'll also
improve the text notices in exported PO files to indicate that
copyright is held by translators, and that Canonical is only
claiming to have assembled an aggregation/compilation of this work
(so as to allow better reuse of translations).

This is basically making explicit what was so far only implicit. We
believe this allows translation reuse in the best possible way,
without restricting contributions arbitrarily and without requiring
excessive paperwork.

So, Daniel, please tell me how happy do you feel about this proposed
solution, and do you think there's anything we can do better?

Thanks,
Danilo

---------------------------------------------------------------------

verkar rimligt tycker jag... det måste ju vara tydligt vad som gäller, vilket det inte verkar ha varit innan

mvh Janne

Översättaren har själv copyright på det översätta men inte på samlingen i sin helhet, men båda släpps under en licens som ger användaren större frihet än GPL-licensen..

Har jag förstått det rätt?

Här kommer uppföljningen..

----------------------------------------

We wouldn't be relicensing your work. We'd only ask you (as a
translator making use of Rosetta) to submit your future work under BSD
license, so it can be shared across different projects in Launchpad.

Note that this is strictly about translations contributed through
Rosetta, and has nothing to do with translations coming through other
sources.

At the moment, when you translate something using Rosetta, your
translations have been submitted under 'same license as the project'.
But your translation will appear as suggestion even in
differently-licensed project, and someone can make use of it by
approving it. Imagine you translate gnome-panel which is GPL, and the
same message appears in gtk20, which is LGPL: with 'same license as
the project', you submitted using Rosetta your translation under GPL,
then someone (again working through Rosetta) enabled it's use in LGPL
project gtk20, basically breaking the license you gave to the system.

So, to clear up the confusion, we've decided to go with BSD license
for all submissions through Rosetta. Now, when you submit your
translation, it will be licensed under BSD, and shareable between all
projects.

When that translations gets included in gnome-panel.po, it will be
part of GPL-licensed file. When it gets included into gtk20.po, it
will be under LGPL.

That's what BSD license allows us to do legally, and that's why we're
going with it.

If we want to have legally clear situation, we've got another options:
1. Disable suggestions and translation memory features of Rosetta
2. Track license for each and every string in Rosetta, keep track of
compatibility between licenses, and do the checks for each
translatable string

We want to avoid 2, since it means a lot of development work for no
real benefit: we'd rather be fixing true issues people are having with
Rosetta, like lack of search, performance issues, translation review,
etc.

As for 1, that's one very important functionality we don't want to
lose. And I suppose the same is with translators.


Now, I hope you understand the reasons behind this. We've simply been
in unclear legal situation so far, and we want to fix that, while
maintaining all the same functionality translators are used to.

If you've got any other questions regarding this (or anything else
Rosetta-relaated), feel free to ask me. And thanks for your opinion
on the matter, and sorry if I've been unclear the first time.