Launchpad logo and name.


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

Licensing of translations (problem!)



Hi All,

I'm bring this discussion which has this has cropped up within our
project to the launcpad-users list.

We want(ed) to use launchpad as a non-technical way to have people
translate our suite of GPL applications, but we also keep translations
in our upstream git repository. Many of the "old" contributors still
supply their new translations by committing directly into our
repository. This had lead to a need for merging between the launchpad
translations and our upstream ones.

However:

One of our translators pointed out the requirement that all launchpad
translations are under the BSD license. This poses us some problems.
gEDA is GPL, and our existing translations are GPL. It also seems very
problematic to track which strings are exported from launchpad, and thus
covered by a BSD license. (I'm also unsure if the project is happy with
mixed licensing or not).

Even if tracking the licenses of individual strings were possible, the
need to merge / update with upstream presents a headache. The only
workflow I know this to be possible with, is exporting the launchpad
translations, me manually merging changes against the git repository,
then re-importing the translations as an upstream published set in
launchpad. AIUI, this will mark all the strings as GPL (coming from
gEDA), even those which actually originate from Launchpad.

I don't see how we can merge those translations back into our git
repository and still keep track of the licensing for each translation.
Similarly, we can't - without asking ALL our translation contributors,
just say "lets make all gEDA translations BSD licensed".


IMO, having launchpad contributers submit translations under the BSD
license is a mistake, and launchpad should have gone down the "public
domain" route with their translations. Even then, it isn't clear
if we could take public domain translations (no restrictions on use),
then declare them part of a GPL set. (Perhaps mean spirited, even if it
were possible).

Would it be possible have translations submitted under a license
allowing us to relicense suggested strings as GPL V2+ (for example?)

Could Canonical consider requesting authors submit their transations
giving Canonical / whoever, free permission to re-license them under ANY
OSI approved license. (Or with the BSD theme... any license?) This extra
permission could be available as an additional option when submitting
strings.

There would perhaps still be the nightmare of trying to keep track of
copyright holders for individual strings when we take them upstream, but
perhaps we don't care - so long as the license is right.


Would it be possible to allow individual projects to have their own
translation licenses? IE. could people translating strings for gEDA
using Launchpad dual-license those provided strings with the GPL (and to
Canonical under the BSD license if required)? This would be useful to
use, EVEN if we couldn't access other BSD licensed string suggestions,
if it would keep the output .po files GPL V2+ licensed.

If not, I guess the only thing we can do to keep things sane (legally),
would be to:

1. Drop all launchpad translated strings from gEDA (I still haven't got
round to handling the merge nightmare, so as yet - no launchpad
translations have made it back upstream.)

2. Contact the translators who submitted strings via launchpad and
request that we be able to license them under GPL V2+ for use in gEDA.
Since there are only a few translators, this ought to be possible.

3. Or.. Contact ALL former translators of gEDA, and request that those
translations can be made available under a BSD license, switching all
our translations to that license. This might be hard / impossible /
unpopular.

Option 1. would be a shame, but is the instintive easy withdrawal from
the problem.

Option 2. ensures we don't loose the work of non-technical contributors
we've specifically asked to use the launchpad interface to contribute
translation work to our project. If I'd realised the licensing problem,
I wouldn't have suggested they work there until it was resolved.

Option 3. may just not be practical to achieve without dropping existing
translations, and it may be unpopular in a suite which takes its very
name from the GPL. (gEDA == GPL'd EDA)

Best wishes,

-- 
Peter Clifton

Electrical Engineering Division,
Engineering Department,
University of Cambridge,
9, JJ Thomson Avenue,
Cambridge
CB3 0FA

Tel: +44 (0)7729 980173 - (No signal in the lab!)





This is the launchpad-users mailing list archive — see also the general help for Launchpad.net mailing lists.

(Formatted by MHonArc.)