Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
So the GPL also holds for none-software in the US since translations are pure text as such (i.e. the simple translation of a .po file partly into another language) and not software in the sense of Austrian author's rights law (at least)?
The GPL applies to the "Program", which is defined as "any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License." (clause 0 of the GPL)
Yes, obviously. The question is this is desirable.
I'm not trying do defend the FSF policy. I'm merely pointing out what the FSF policy *is* (or, rather, what I think the FSF policy is - I don't speak for the FSF). If that really is the FSF policy, then mailman can only call itself "GNU mailman" if it complies with the FSF policy - this is the game in the GNU project. Whether or not to enforce FSF policy in the mailman project is up to the mailman maintainers (for which I don't speak, either). And if GNU mailman implements FSF policy, whether or not translators want to work with the mailman project, is their choice - I don't speak for the translators, obviously. But *if* they decide to cooperate with the project, and *if* the project agrees to implement FSF policy, *then* translators will have to sign papers. Regards, Martin