FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Ubuntu > Launchpad User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 07-01-2008, 09:30 PM
Benno Schulenberg
 
Default BSD licence

Bruno Patri wrote:
> On Tuesday 01 July 2008 17:29:58 Danilo *egan wrote:
> >
> > http://translationproject.org/html/whydisclaim.html
> >
> > As you can see there, many GPL projects which otherwise require
> > strict copyright assignment in paper, require copyright
> > _disclaimers_ when it comes to translations ("disclaiming a
> > copyright" means that you are giving your work out into public
> > domain;

In essence that is correct: PO files in GNU packages can be
considered to have been put in the public domain.

> In my opinion, it's just the opposite, BSD is worse than the FSF
> disclaimer.

Sorry, not so.

> http://translationproject.org/disclaim.txt
> "I disclaim all
> copyright interest in my works, which consist of translation of
> portions of free software programs from one human language to
> another human language, that I have provided to the Foundation or
> that I will provide in the future. The programs to which this
> applies include all programs for which the Foundation is the
> copyright holder, and all other freely redistributable software
> programs."
>
> As far as I can understand it, the last sentence gives me the
> guarantee that my translations can not be used in proprietary
> software.

Untrue. They can. They can be freely copied, by anyone, for any
purpose. The last sentence just means that the disclaimer isn't
only valid for translations made for GNU programs, but also for
those made for other free software.

> There's nothing about "public domain" in this disclaimer.

It doesn't say so literally, but that is what this "I disclaim all
copyright interest in my [translations]" amounts to.

Also see the second paragraph of
http://translationproject.org/html/whydisclaim.html:

"""Some translators misread the translation disclaimer as an
assignment of their translations to the FSF. This is not the case.
The disclaimer merely says that the signer will never make use of
the copyright on his or her translations: will never forbid copying
them, and will never ask for some kind of compensation. This
guarantees that the FSF (and everyone else) will always be allowed
to freely distribute these translations."""

Benno


--
launchpad-users mailing list
launchpad-users@lists.canonical.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/launchpad-users
 
Old 07-01-2008, 09:41 PM
 
Default BSD licence

danilo@canonical.com (Danilo *egan) writes:

> Hi Luca,

Hi Danilo

thanks for your reply, I read it carefully and have some
considerations about it.

> Yesterday at 12:05, luca innurindi wrote:
>
>> I don't understand, but these strings came from upstream translations?
>> If yes, the Ubuntu translators mustn't modify them without asking to the
>> upstream translators.
>
> License changes will apply only to work contributed directly through
> Launchpad: upstream translations are not treated under the same rules.

Good, so the upstream translations remain with their own license, but
what do you think to do in the cases where an user uploads them after the automatic
import in Launchpad because they weren't complete at that time?

> [...]
> So, while we do understand there are some risks, we feel they are very
> low.

Whty do you think so? IMHO I see nothing that prevents someone from
profiting from this license. Everyone registered in Launchpad can export the pos and
distribute them with hia own license.

> And we are not alone in that, FSF feels the same way (judging by
> their actions):
>
> http://translationproject.org/html/whydisclaim.html
>
> As you can see there, many GPL projects which otherwise require strict
> copyright assignment in paper, require copyright _disclaimers_ when it
> comes to translations ("disclaiming a copyright" means that you are
> giving your work out into public domain; this is even "worse" than
> what BSD license does: BSD license allows you to still keep at least
> some rights, and in some countries, you can even revoke it if your
> "moral" rights have been violated).

I already know the policy of FSF but I don't see in this an assignment
of translations to public domain but a dislaimer for FSF on the translations
that the copyright holder has provided to FSF, not a disclaimer for everyone.

See for example from the form the translator must send to FSF:
" (though this disclaimer applies to all such translations that
I may subsequently provide to the FSF, whatever the language)"

And the reason because FSF requests this disclaimer could be seen in
my opinion similar to the reason for the assignment of copyright for software provided to the FSF projects:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html
that is a more effectiveness in protecting the GPL software and its translations.

And let me make a question: if we distribute Ubuntu with a
license that meets our philosophy of Free Software and so
it's a GPL-like license, couldn't seem not strange for an user of this
software that we ditsribute the translations
that come with this software in another license?

I understand the motivations that this license could easily make the
translations reused by other open source projects getting some
consistency in opren source translations, but IMHO I don't see why we
have to adapt to licenses of other projects and not other projects to
adapt to our like-GPL license as we have now when it's written that
the license is the same of the software it comes with.

Sory for the long email, these are only my 2 cents if they could
contribute to the evaluation of the opportunity to change the license.

--
luca, (ᴉ) innurindi
Luca Padrin
sistemi software
email/jabber: luca@innurindi.net
impronta gpg: 43D7 D917 B86A C6F2 B4B6 3B68 85FE 2372 3F0B B7DB
fellow della Free Software Foundation Europe

"I' walking down to emperors bay,
A signal, a sound, dolphins at play."
(emperors ballad, 2008-04-29)

--
launchpad-users mailing list
launchpad-users@lists.canonical.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/launchpad-users
 
Old 07-02-2008, 06:02 AM
Reinhard Tartler
 
Default BSD licence

Mackenzie Morgan <macoafi@gmail.com> writes:

> Changing anything from BSD to GPL is easy. It's the reverse that's
> impossible.

No, it is not. Please read the BSD license. It explicitly does *not*
allow you to remove the copyright headers and therefore relicense it.

And please be careful when giving legal advice to others.

--
Gruesse/greetings,
Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4


--
launchpad-users mailing list
launchpad-users@lists.canonical.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/launchpad-users
 
Old 07-02-2008, 06:07 AM
Lee Glidewell
 
Default BSD licence

On Tuesday 01 July 2008 11:02:05 pm Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Mackenzie Morgan <macoafi@gmail.com> writes:
> > Changing anything from BSD to GPL is easy. It's the reverse that's
> > impossible.
>
> No, it is not. Please read the BSD license. It explicitly does *not*
> allow you to remove the copyright headers and therefore relicense it.

Copyright headers and licensing terms are separate things. The BSD license is
specifically designed to allow developers to close source an open project
should their needs require this. That's the whole point of it.

> And please be careful when giving legal advice to others.

Ahem.


--
Lee Glidewell | PGP key: D5D686A7
lee.glidewell@gmail.com |

--
launchpad-users mailing list
launchpad-users@lists.canonical.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/launchpad-users
 
Old 07-02-2008, 06:35 AM
Henning Eggers
 
Default BSD licence

Reinhard Tartler schrieb:
> Mackenzie Morgan <macoafi@gmail.com> writes:
>> hanging anything from BSD to GPL is easy. It's the reverse that's
>> impossible.
>>
> No, it is not. Please read the BSD license. It explicitly does *not*
> allow you to remove the copyright headers and therefore relicense it.
>
Well, the BSD license only requires the headers to remain in the source
and the binaries, it does not forbid adding more headers and licences.
In fact, it doesn't say anything about how derivative work should be
licensed, as the GPL does. So I should think that *adding* a GPL license
to a file that already has a BSD license does not violate that license.

> And please be careful when giving legal advice to others.
>
Isn't this whole discussion one big legal advice? ;-)

Henning


--
launchpad-users mailing list
launchpad-users@lists.canonical.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/launchpad-users
 
Old 07-02-2008, 07:36 AM
Reinhard Tartler
 
Default BSD licence

Henning Eggers <henning@eggers.name> writes:

> Reinhard Tartler schrieb:
>> Mackenzie Morgan <macoafi@gmail.com> writes:
>>> changing anything from BSD to GPL is easy. It's the reverse that's
>>> impossible.
>>>
>> No, it is not. Please read the BSD license. It explicitly does *not*
>> allow you to remove the copyright headers and therefore relicense it.
>>
> Well, the BSD license only requires the headers to remain in the source
> and the binaries, it does not forbid adding more headers and
> licences. In fact, it doesn't say anything about how derivative work
> should be licensed, as the GPL does. So I should think that *adding* a
> GPL license to a file that already has a BSD license does not violate
> that license.

That's the important difference. Mackenzie talked about 'changeing' a
work from BSD to GPL. That's different to what you way.

--
Gruesse/greetings,
Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4

--
launchpad-users mailing list
launchpad-users@lists.canonical.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/launchpad-users
 
Old 07-02-2008, 09:06 AM
"Henning Eggers"
 
Default BSD licence

Reinhard Tartler sagte:
> That's the important difference. Mackenzie talked about 'changeing' a
> work from BSD to GPL. That's different to what you way.

But as the GPL is more restrictive than BSD, adding GPL to BSD effectively
overrules the BSD, doesn't it? So afterwards the file is bound by the more
restrictive GPL which is almost the same as changing the license, isn't
it?

Henning


--
launchpad-users mailing list
launchpad-users@lists.canonical.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/launchpad-users
 
Old 07-02-2008, 09:14 AM
Reinhard Tartler
 
Default BSD licence

"Henning Eggers" <henning@eggers.name> writes:

> Reinhard Tartler sagte:
>> That's the important difference. Mackenzie talked about 'changeing' a
>> work from BSD to GPL. That's different to what you way.
>
> But as the GPL is more restrictive than BSD, adding GPL to BSD effectively
> overrules the BSD, doesn't it? So afterwards the file is bound by the more
> restrictive GPL which is almost the same as changing the license, isn't
> it?

True, but that's only adding restrictions, not removing already existing
ones. Please read the BSD license, it does not allow removal of the
license text.

--
Gruesse/greetings,
Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4

--
launchpad-users mailing list
launchpad-users@lists.canonical.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/launchpad-users
 
Old 07-02-2008, 09:39 AM
"Henning Eggers"
 
Default BSD licence

Reinhard Tartler sagte:
> True, but that's only adding restrictions, not removing already existing
> ones. Please read the BSD license, it does not allow removal of the
> license text.

Reinhard (btw, that's my father's name :-)), I have read the license text,
wouldn't dare posting here without having done that.

Have a look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Compatibility_and_multi-licensing

Henning


--
launchpad-users mailing list
launchpad-users@lists.canonical.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/launchpad-users
 
Old 07-03-2008, 10:46 AM
 
Default BSD licence

Hi Benno, Milo,

On Tuesday at 23:18, Benno Schulenberg wrote:

> Milo Casagrande wrote:
>> when you upload a translation from upstream and publish it
>> as "coming from upstream", it should maintains its license;
>> if you publish it as a "user upload" then, as Danilo said, you're
>> messing up a little bit the translations and in that case you're
>> publishing under BSD.

That's right: if you are uploading others' upstream translations,
check the 'published' box on the upload page.

> If the uploader is the upstream translator, it should be his or her
> prerogative to do a "user upload". As the strings are his or hers,
> she or he can decide to publish them under different licences, no?

Indeed.

> However, I do hope that Launchpad is clever enough to not see
> uploaded strings that are identical to packaged strings as
> contributions, but instead retains for these identical strings the
> licence of packaged ones.

This is true as well: if exactly the same strings appear, we don't
change their origin from "packaged" to "Launchpad".

Cheers,
Danilo

--
launchpad-users mailing list
launchpad-users@lists.canonical.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/launchpad-users
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:31 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org