On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Jonas Smedegaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 11:41:41AM -0400, C. Scott Ananian wrote: >>John Gilmore has been pushing us to get our licensing ducks in a row. >>The one remaining problem has been activities and content bundles: we >>can't legally distribute bundles that don't have a clear statement of >>license. > > There is also licensing problems in some PO-files. > > POT-files should replace PACKAGE with actual package name. > > PO-files should include both proper copyright and licensing info.
Could you suggest a patch to http://dev.laptop.org/git/projects/image-builder or a stand-alone script that could audit for such problems? I believe most of our po files are generated/maintained by a Pootle instance; Sayamindu, is patching Pootle to check for reasonable license information feasible? That would address the problem at the source. --scott -- ( http://cscott.net/ ) _______________________________________________ Sugar mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
