This thread demonstrates precisely why I loathe licensing. But I digress, please continue. On Dec 1, 2011 9:08 AM, "Shaun McCance" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 > [email protected] > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-doc-list >
_______________________________________________ gnome-doc-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-doc-list
