On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 10:53:21 +0200 Gudmund Areskoug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Axel Hecht skrev: > > 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. > > It is/may be derivative work, but the copyright to a translation belongs > to the translator by default. > Since it is or may be derivative, the translator mostly can't do > whatever she likes with the translation, but nobody else can do anything > with the translation unless the translator says so. Yes, the copyright undoubtedly belongs to the translator. The question involves licensing terms. If the .pot file was under the GPL, is the .po file a derivative work, and hence under the GPL, too? A secondary question is, if an existing .po file, which is explicitly licensed under the GPL, is added to by another translator, is the new translation also under the GPL? My opinion would be yes, in both cases, though it is much less clear in the first case. There, since the strings are derived from the source code, and since the .pot file says that the licence is the same as that for the base package, my opinion is that if the application is under the GPL, so is the .pot file. Maybe we should get a legal opinion on this. Regards, Gora _______________________________________________ gnome-i18n mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n
