[opensuse-translation] Re: Vertaal (was: Moving SVN to opensuse.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2011-11-30 10:18, Strainu wrote:
Time to change the subject here.
You forgot to send to the list. Forwarding.
2011/11/30 Carlos E. R. <>:
On 2011-11-29 17:01, Strainu wrote:
That's the code. The glossary says: cc-by-nc-sa-3.0 [ http://www.vertaal.com.ar/iterm/opensuse/ro/list/ ],
Creativecommons is a free license, and it applies to the words you add to the glossary.
Carlos, that is a common misconception. In order for a license to be free, it has to meet four criteria. See http://freedomdefined.org/Definition . All NC licenses fail at "The freedom to redistribute copies: Copies may be sold, swapped or given away for free, as part of a larger work, a collection, or independently."
See also http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses for a list of free content licenses and http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC for a list of the problems NC licenses have.
More to the point, if I decide to use Vertaal's glossary, I will be unable to license my translations under GPL, for instance, because GPL allows for commercial uses. Also, it is highly unlikely that a glossary can even be copyrighted. I am pretty sure you won't be able to do it in in the US, and in the EU it will be protected by the database creators' rights, not by copyright itself.
Another issue with Vertaal is that it does not make clear (or I could not identify) the license for the translations themselves. Different projects might have different expectations, so it would be useful for the translation team to choose its own license.
I don't really see a problem with those issues for now, as most glossaries are empty and there are only a handful of projects, but these should be addressed if you want to further enlarge this project.
The translations themselves have the same legal status regardless of you using vertaal or not. The .po files usually have a license preamble, and that is what applies. As to CC not being free, I disagree. It was invented precisely for being contrary to the copyright. - -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 11.4 x86_64 "Celadon" at Telcontar) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk7V/SsACgkQtTMYHG2NR9WtwQCgjoilyiQegjyf3zTvEkbg3Ron J2AAnRycqKyeGYV0o7CMKjOic2KheULv =sN1x -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-translation+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-translation+owner@opensuse.org
2011/11/30 Carlos E. R.
The translations themselves have the same legal status regardless of you using vertaal or not. The .po files usually have a license preamble, and that is what applies.
True. We might want to discuss about that in another thread, as right now every language seems to have a different copyright preamble, which is different from the one in the POT files. That does not mean that Vertaal is making it clear for the users what license are they translating under (again, perhaps I don't know where to look).
As to CC not being free, I disagree. It was invented precisely for being contrary to the copyright.
I sincerely hope that won't get you into any trouble in the future, because it's simply not true. No license makes the copyright disappear, it just allows the others to use the work following some rules. See the following link: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#Is_Creative_Commons_against_copyright.3F IANAL, but integrating content licensed as NC into GPL programs is very likely illegal. Strainu -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-translation+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-translation+owner@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2011-11-30 12:18, Strainu wrote:
2011/11/30 Carlos E. R. <>:
The translations themselves have the same legal status regardless of you using vertaal or not. The .po files usually have a license preamble, and that is what applies.
True. We might want to discuss about that in another thread, as right now every language seems to have a different copyright preamble, which is different from the one in the POT files. That does not mean that Vertaal is making it clear for the users what license are they translating under (again, perhaps I don't know where to look).
Because the license can be rewritten by the tool that creates the .po from the .pot, and sometimes by the editor. Kabel does if you click on an option. I haven't even looked at what license the files I'm translating have. They should have "same license as the .pot", but I do not verify. Unless the project tell us to verify the license and use one, I really do not care.
IANAL, but integrating content licensed as NC into GPL programs is very likely illegal.
That's not for me to say. Novell has lawyers. - -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 11.4 x86_64 "Celadon" at Telcontar) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk7WEqEACgkQtTMYHG2NR9W+QACfV2ZKZigtasZ6AwixVe4Mj04d nPkAnjfGWdWJa0mCir3OJY/mQXjzDibr =ZB0w -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-translation+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-translation+owner@opensuse.org
participants (2)
-
Carlos E. R. -
Strainu