On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 10:16:19 +0100 Marc Haber wrote:
Hi,
Hello!
while reviewing the aide package for writing a machine-readable debian/copyright file, I have stumbled up on the translations.
I think that paying attention to translation licenses is a good thing
to do.
Thanks for caring about it!
https://salsa.debian.org/debian/aide/-/tree/master/debian/po
Oh, what a mess.
Most of the translatiosn don't have a license statement at all, some
have correctly stated that the same license as for the aide package
applies, and one translator has made an obvious cut&paste error, putting
the aide translation under the same license as the postfix package.
Ouch! :-(
Since the postfix package uses a rather exotic dual-license scheme that doesn't include a GPL variant, this is rather bad for an otherweise
GPLled package.
Indeed, postfix is dual-licensed under the EPL v2.0 and the IBM CPL v1.0
(I am [not even convinced] that this license meets the DFSG).
Definitely GPL-incompatible, anyway.
I personally think that this translation should be re-licensed by the translators or removed.
[not even convinced]: <
https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/06/msg00234.html>
Most of the files have not been touched for a decade, and I doubt that
the original translators are still around.
Can I safely assume that a translation without an explicit license was
meant to be licensed with the package, which would be GPL-2+ in this
case?
Well, a translation (.po file) is a derivative work of the original
message collection (.pot file), which is extracted from the original
program.
If the original program is under the GNU GPL v2 license or later, one
can argue that the translation is only distributable under the same
licensing scheme (or later), and hence implicitly under the GPL.
However, my personal opinion is that it would be much much better, if
the licensing status of the translation file were explicitly stated.
Hence, I would suggest you to seek clarification from translators,
whenever possible.
Or is this unlicensed work and need to be relicensed, and in the
case the original translator is no longer available, must be removed?
Maybe not removed, but a license clarification should be sought.
What do others think?
--
http://www.inventati.org/frx/
There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..................................................... Francesco Poli .
GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEygERR5zS79/7gjklPhwn4R9pv/4FAmAItQ0ACgkQPhwn4R9p v/488A//YywgFDA8HXAC2K4T0tmM8rsl1RQ28zCk+8GkHqo6MF30bVkBbrbSxK1W rPXTovTGkvICYqHI9w+stJAKiMhCeGcqtEaVaaHrl3QHD1QGz9sg8IVGZfWtfQSp gN6vtNrEvenuFnRay05vB3HmsRTnwiua8yYtmBdCKXJtDDeHAtOEKFKMGzfyviHX WVMUTQr31JNQE56D0itHVCQt8xs8icA1VoZZk4rAQVfWA50PyUS1dfRCVwMpfak2 m3NyEyW0n1SvFX7En+PJ0xv7WEmrldJpnfokTu9+fqEMn9K565YMBtNi32Aq0PCZ CLpdLVwcmPKcFL6LVaVak3lUvr/gkf+0aqIN9UFheY4D9/hVn667lkl01lY5oxKf 3+p5dMl8EGvLNDf5eCKWHcFvpkBBvVThEuQrAsFyCzDpSGp0WHie/gUtl3vWQbfg eFXhj2NUNmigy1+xNj8V/RfodYgRqGvrDGcc9GU5X/Zm8eXziDKEfMaBBU4kIS2u nvia6MbTsGEM8d1noF0+XWJ1Umja9rBn212Nos7dGooY4M3HwXFt/qymrUSXsRrn pwZ6XmVENYi6ZS2AQpW/aPv6e9MgpTue0I6t2PjhduGBeR6gdHyx7E4Pj2bsWEKr qJVAJR5RfXPWSgd8NfRvAe/IArkuy4Cz