FWIW, in the Mozilla project, we consider translations to be derivative work.
Which is what we consider, I wouldn't know that any lawyer looked at it for us. Axel 2008/9/21 Anna Jonna Armannsdottir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > gnome-i18n mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n > > _______________________________________________ gnome-i18n mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n
