[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Translations was Re: [Gnumed-devel] Interest in GNUmed

From: Karsten Hilbert
Subject: Re: Translations was Re: [Gnumed-devel] Interest in GNUmed
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:28:11 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)

On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 04:17:56PM -0700, Jim Busser wrote:

> On 2009-10-26, at 3:49 PM, Karsten Hilbert wrote:
> >While technically I don't see a problem with that we've been
> >discussing licensing implications regarding the translated
> >terms without coming to a safe conclusion.
> I would have a hard time arguing that the translations (single words
> or short strings of words) need to be kept GPL.
> I would accept the argument that it is not the individual translated
> items (words or phrases) that is unique, but the aggregated
> collection, and recognizing that in our case the .po files are mixes
> of clinical words with technical strings – many of which would be
> functional gibberish if transplanted into some other system – I
> truly can't see a problem with the translations being BSD.

OK, sounds reasonable to me. Sometimes I don't trust my
feeling about licensing issues and thus it's good to hear
(an)other opinion(s).

I guess I'm fine with using Launchpad to facilitate
translation. I would envision something like the following

One day I decide that I've added enough a sizable amount of
new strings to the client. I run
which generates a new po file and uploads it to launchpad.

Previous to a release I go
which downloads what exists there, merges with what is in CVS
and commits.

So it'd be great if we could get the apparent po jam cleared
up and 

GPG key ID E4071346 @
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD  4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]