So, we've gone ahead and registered the Mailman project at Ubuntu's Launchpad Rosetta. We should start migrating all i18n development to that site. Currently I'm still working with the Launchpad folks to get the Mailman project set up correctly, but in the meantime, anybody who still wants to work on Mailman i18n (and I hope that's you! :), should register with Launchpad and the GNU Translators group. You'll need to sign and submit a disclaimer form in order to join that group, but once you do, you'll be able to translate Mailman or any other GNU project registered at Launchpad. I think these are good links to start with: https://launchpad.net/rosetta/groups/gnu-translators/ https://launchpad.net/rosetta The Mailman pot and po files aren't yet uploaded, but I'll announce here when they are. Cheers, -Barry
Hi Barry, Barry Warsaw wrote:
So, we've gone ahead and registered the Mailman project at Ubuntu's Launchpad Rosetta. We should start migrating all i18n development to that site. Currently I'm still working with the Launchpad folks to get the Mailman project set up correctly, but in the meantime, anybody who still wants to work on Mailman i18n (and I hope that's you! :), should register with Launchpad and the GNU Translators group. You'll need to sign and submit a disclaimer form in order to join that group, but once you do, you'll be able to translate Mailman or any other GNU project registered at Launchpad.
Should we all need to sign the paper? GPL article 5 states: ........................................... Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, ... It looks like publishing translation equals acceptance and need no signing. To us, who are not native english speaker, it is a pain to read these kind of paper.
I think these are good links to start with:
https://launchpad.net/rosetta/groups/gnu-translators/ https://launchpad.net/rosetta
The Mailman pot and po files aren't yet uploaded, but I'll announce here when they are.
I'm working on the mailman.pot file which include templates and will be checking in soon. I think this should be a starting point of 2.2 tree and will not commit in the 2.1-maint. -- Tokio Kikuchi, tkikuchi@ is.kochi-u.ac.jp http://weather.is.kochi-u.ac.jp/
Tokio Kikuchi wrote:
Should we all need to sign the paper?
I think the FSF is asking for papers of all contributors to the GNU project, see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html Regards, Martin
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Tokio Kikuchi wrote:
Should we all need to sign the paper?
I think the FSF is asking for papers of all contributors to the GNU project, see
Yeah, but we are separating translations from the main developement. We can release mailman-2.2 without translations indicating the user to download from other sites (or in separate packages). Translation is a kind of `modification' and the article 5 indicates the act of modification and distribution itself implies acceptance of the GPL. -- Tokio Kikuchi, tkikuchi@ is.kochi-u.ac.jp http://weather.is.kochi-u.ac.jp/
Tokio Kikuchi wrote:
Yeah, but we are separating translations from the main developement. We can release mailman-2.2 without translations indicating the user to download from other sites (or in separate packages). Translation is a kind of `modification' and the article 5 indicates the act of modification and distribution itself implies acceptance of the GPL.
That's not the point: any contributor already has accepted the GPL. The issue is whether the FSF could ever defend the GPL in court: if there are many authors of the software (and translators *are* authors), the court might think that the FSF is just one of the many authors, and can't speak for all of them. So they try to reduce the number of authors of the software. Regards, Martin
On Tue, 2005-12-06 at 05:03 +0100, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
Tokio Kikuchi wrote:
Yeah, but we are separating translations from the main developement. We can release mailman-2.2 without translations indicating the user to download from other sites (or in separate packages). Translation is a kind of `modification' and the article 5 indicates the act of modification and distribution itself implies acceptance of the GPL.
That's not the point: any contributor already has accepted the GPL. The issue is whether the FSF could ever defend the GPL in court: if there are many authors of the software (and translators *are* authors), the court might think that the FSF is just one of the many
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)? And BTW it is not possible to give away your author's right in continental European law (at least in .at and AFAIK .de) - you may just grant all rights to use (exclusively or non-exclusively) of your "work". Which is IMHO (sorry, IANAL) more than enough for all practical reasons regarding GPL etc.)
authors, and can't speak for all of them.
Is it necessary to have *all* author's (i.e. 100% of them) in court or is it enough to have the contributors of the majority of content (say > 50% or so) or some (in whatever way defined) "core team"?
So they try to reduce the number of authors of the software.
Yes, obviously. The question is this is desirable. Bernd -- Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/ mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55 Embedded Linux Development and Services
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
On Tue, 2005-12-06 at 22:40 +0100, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
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).
I think we're obliged to, as long as we call ourselves GNU Mailman. Note that this applies regardless of whether we coordinate translations through Rosetta or not. Sadly, I've been lax at enforcing this requirement, so the only thing that Rosetta adds is easier management and stricter enforcement of a policy we should have had all along. -Barry
On Tue, 2005-12-06 at 10:25 +0900, Tokio Kikuchi wrote:
Should we all need to sign the paper?
There was some debate about this over on rosetta-users. It's definitely true that translations are already covered by the GPL, but the FSF imposes the additional requirement of copyright assignment, as Martin says, to reduce the number of authors. The FSF believes (although I don't know whether this have ever been tested in practice) that this helps them defend the GPL, should that ever become necessary. Tokio and others have already assigned or disclaimed for the Mailman project, so technically you wouldn't need to do anything to continue to contribute translations to Mailman. The thought was that by signing the disclaimer on Rosetta, you could then contribute translations to any of the GNU projects hosted there. I'm definitely open to suggestions. My primary goal is first, to make Mailman easier to contribute to, and second, to make it easier to maintain. Mailman 2 is a GNU project so I think we should continue to support the procedures the FSF requests of GNU projects as much as possible, for now at least. But if people think the requirements are too onerous, please let us know! -Barry
Barry Warsaw wrote:
I'm definitely open to suggestions. My primary goal is first, to make Mailman easier to contribute to, and second, to make it easier to maintain. Mailman 2 is a GNU project so I think we should continue to support the procedures the FSF requests of GNU projects as much as possible, for now at least. But if people think the requirements are too onerous, please let us know!
Speaking for the Translation Project: The contribution procedures are really simple if you tell translators: this is the document which you have to print out and sign, and this is the address you have to send it to. this is the set of strings that you have to fill into the form. People are slightly bothered, but generally willing to sign a form if all they have to do is to print a sheet of paper, put some well-known text into it, and put it into an envolope with a stamp on it. People are much more bothered if they actually have to think about this, e.g. when being given options to do either a) or b). Only occasionally, people complain that mailing to the U.S. is too costly; we then found a way to collect letters in the country, and have them batch-mailed into the U.S. If that would ever arise with mailman, we could happily coordinate with the team leader of the local team (they would normally be willing to pay the overseas stamp out of their pockets). Of course, you should make really sure in advance that you never have to go back and change the procedures, in case the translators signed the wrong document. So it should be certain that mailman is covered by whatever they sign. Also, if that procedure is in place, you should actively encourage translators to sign the papers ASAP, i.e. before they start translating. The entire snail mail game will take some time, and formally, you cannot accept their work until the papers have been received. Regards, Martin
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Speaking for the Translation Project: The contribution procedures are really simple if you tell translators:
this is the document which you have to print out and sign, and this is the address you have to send it to. this is the set of strings that you have to fill into the form.
Well, it is simple if I am not employed. My employer (a Japanese University) refused to compose and sign a disclaimer and only expressed their "indifference" on my work to _me_ (not to FSF). It took three month to reach this conclusion. They wanted to do things in Japanese (or bureaucratic?) way. :-( OK. I understand the points and go this way. Official translations should be covered by the GNU Public License and the translators should sign the paper. -- Tokio Kikuchi, tkikuchi@ is.kochi-u.ac.jp http://weather.is.kochi-u.ac.jp/
On Wed, 2005-12-07 at 09:28 +0900, Tokio Kikuchi wrote:
Well, it is simple if I am not employed. My employer (a Japanese University) refused to compose and sign a disclaimer and only expressed their "indifference" on my work to _me_ (not to FSF). It took three month to reach this conclusion. They wanted to do things in Japanese (or bureaucratic?) way. :-(
It may be possible to use your existing paperwork to add you to the GNU Translators group. I don't remember the exact wording of what you signed. That would probably go for anyone else who has already signed translation papers. -Barry
participants (4)
-
"Martin v. Löwis" -
Barry Warsaw -
Bernd Petrovitsch -
Tokio Kikuchi