Re: Translators and changes in DDTSS (was: Re: Questions about DDTP)
2007/7/4, Helge Kreutzmann <email@example.com>:
On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 09:46:53PM +0200, Jens Seidel wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 09:26:50PM +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> > On 7/4/07, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Who cares about the Copyright? Isn't the license the important info?
> In this case a hint that translations will be considered as GPL
> licensed would help, right?
I don't know if all packages (not the upstream software!) are released
under the GPL. Some Debian developers might chose a BSD license, so it
would be better if all translations had the *same* license as the
package itself. This might even allow including non-free at some
> Anonymous translations are really fine for me as long as I can improve
> it and avoid that such persons overwrite important stuff ...
But you can't kick anonymous translators out or watch problematic
anonymous translators. So, e.g., the UK team just discovered a whole
lot of problematic translations, whom should they talk to? Same for
German - some are fine, some are, yes, problematic. Though I did not
check if they were anonymous, yet.
Perhaps using roles would be a solution.
It can use "official" and "unofficial" translators/reviewers. So until
the translations has at least a pass of an "official" translator the
translation is pending reviewed. The asignation of "official" can be
done by the coordinators of each translation team.
Respect to license, perhaps a solution would be adding a comment with
the translation that show if that translation is done with that
interface, the license that it is going to use is going to be X.
They are only seeds of ideas...
Dr. Helge Kreutzmann email@example.com
64bit GNU powered gpg signed mail preferred
Help keep free software "libre": http://www.ffii.de/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----