Hello,
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) <felipe@cathedrallabs.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
stage...
> 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.
Greetings
Helge
--
Dr. Helge Kreutzmann debian@helgefjell.de
Dipl.-Phys. http://www.helgefjell.de/debian.php
64bit GNU powered gpg signed mail preferred
Help keep free software "libre": http://www.ffii.de/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature