Hi folks,

I have a question about translating licence text inserted by Source -> Insert General -> *Something.

What do you think about translating? I have found some Czech licences translated, so I translated and corrected translations of the rest. But if I consider the rest of the world, I cannot imagine that somebody includes some opensource licence and publishes project - with Czech variants of licence? Wouldn't be better to revert licence texts into english?

Hello,
?
If you already translated it, it should be used somehow. ?
Why not to extend menu:
?
Insert GPL notice (english)
Insert GPL notice (localized)
etc.
?
Developer can choose localized if he develops for local market only and english for internatioinal applications. ?
Vojt?ch?
?
______________________________________________________________

Hi folks,

I have a question about translating licence text inserted by Source -> Insert General -> *Something.

What do you think about translating? I have found some Czech licences translated, so I translated and corrected translations of the rest. But if I consider the rest of the world, I cannot imagine that somebody includes some opensource licence and publishes project - with Czech variants of licence? Wouldn't be better to revert licence texts into english?

Good idea. Done.

Mattias

But who translated it?

Legal texts are not always simple to translate, and just translating them may impact their correctness?

Hello,
I only quickly Googled and found this: http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/s390/apf.html.cs (there is more result found).
There is stated that translation is not official (i.e. it was not published by FSF). There is also stated:
?
?Kop?rov?n? a distribuce doslovn?ch kopi? tohoto licen?n?ho dokumentu jsou dovoleny komukoliv, jeho zm?ny jsou v?ak zak?z?ny. ~=
Copying and distribution letter-perfect copies of this document is allowed for everyone, any changes are restricted. ?
I guess it will be similar with other languages.?
?
Vojt?ch?

I second Martin's concerns.

The situation as just implemented is that the regular translators are supposed to translate GPL, LGPL, MIT licenses etc? I would advise against that.

Apart from that, English language licenses are widely used around the world; I suppose some obscure jurisdictions may require translations, but then again, those should be obtained from the proper source/somebody should make sure these are the required versions without changes.

If a dev really wants to insert his translated license, he can do so manually (well, Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V).

No. Each country has its official language. Even if english is widely used (especially in IT), it means nothing from the point of view of jurisdiction. If you are commercial company and you want to do business in any country, you should translate licences, manuals, warranties etc. For example, EULA of MS Windows comes always translated.

Random sample: Thunderbird, help/about, end user rights. English. I'm not in an English speaking country...
Apart from the point you're making though, is that having translators translate legal agreements means that they must know what they are doing as well, i.e. have legal (translation) experience. I very much doubt that
1. all translators will realize this
2. all translaters have this

Just my 2 cents.

My opinion is, that for public available license, we should only add translations to the IDE, if they come from the official supplier of that license, and are approved by them.

Adding a translation of any other kind and distribute it with the IDE would IMHO be dangerous. It would encourage users to use a license text that may not correct.

Doing so would mean that we would knowingly lead our users to use a "license" that may not be worth the paper it is written on (or in this case the digital media it is stored on).

[...] I very much doubt that 1. all translators will realize this 2. all translaters have this

If you don't trust a translator, ask him.

Mattias

Well, I'm not interested in translated licenses myself; I'd like to make sure that any users get what they expect - and that people don't get blamed unnecessarily afterwards.

Could the relevant .po file be supplied with a remark/comment that only legally correct translations should be used? This would serve as a warning to the translaters.
(Haven't looked at .po files for a while, but vaguely remember you could put in hints for the translators etc)

Have you read the text?

The resourcestrings are *not* the licenses. They only say, what license is used and where to get a copy.
Where is the problem to translate?

Mattias

With the exception of the MIT header. But I'm not sure how that license works outside the USA.

Mattias

I obvously haven't.

The resourcestrings are *not* the licenses. They only say, what license is used and where to get a copy. Where is the problem to translate?

No problem then.

1, For Czech translations which I was doing/editing from previous translator, I looked for materials about meaning of licence in Czech and English, to keep the meaning of translated text.
2, Before my corrections, there was mixture of Czech sentences with English untranslated words
3, It may be nice to put some notice about "uncertified" translation before/under the text
4, Translated licences are (from my point of view) keeping the meaning, but they are translated into "unnatural" form of language (if you know what I mean)
5, I haven't finished improving and translating - so I don't have problem to just delete 'em.

V?clav Val??ek

Dne 29.5.2014 11:54, Martin Frb napsal(a):

2014-05-29 15:05 GMT-03:00 V?clav Val??ek :

There are some restrictions from FSF in translating the GPL licenses:

" We give permission to publish translations of GNU licenses into other languages, provided that:

1. You label your translation as unofficial to inform people that they do not count legally as substitutes for the authentic version (see below for how to do this).
2. You agree to install changes at our request, if we learn from other friends of GNU that changes are necessary to make the translation clearer.
3. The translation is not hosted on a commercial site and does not refer to any company.
4. The page containing the translation should have no links except to fsf.org and gnu.org. We might accept links about other free software packages, but we prefer to avoid them.
5. The page should say it is released under some version of the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs license.
6. We may accept small exceptions to these rules in legacy cases that are hard to fix.

To label your translations as unofficial, please add the following text at the beginning, both in English and in the language of the translation. Replace language with the name of that language, and ?GNU General Public License? and ?GPL? with the name and abbreviation of the license you're translating, if it's not the GPL:

"This is an unofficial translation of the GNU General Public License into language. It was not published by the Free Software Foundation, and does not legally state the distribution terms for software that uses the GNU GPL?only the original English text of the GNU GPL does that. However, we hope that this translation will help language speakers understand the GNU GPL better."

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/translations.html

While trying to adapt notice about not legal translation, I have found that I have to add new lines to licence text.... And it is problem, because of Format function (ide/sourceeditor.pp:4011) - it would case missmatch.

Code:
   Txt:=CommentText(LCLProc.BreakString(
Format(Notice,[#13#13,#13#13,#13#13,#13#13,#13#13]),
            FEditor.RightEdge-2,0),CommentType);
Isn't it silly to change it just to?:
   Txt:=CommentText(LCLProc.BreakString(
            StringReplace(Notice, '%s', sLineBreak, [rfReplaceAll]),
            FEditor.RightEdge-2,0),CommentType);

(It's silly from point of view of Format(), but in licences, there will be IMO %s = CRLF forever, with no other formatting options) I tried to change the resourcestring (replace %s with sLineBreak) - to tell if it is able to replace %s with CRLF in resourcestrings... I'm not sure if it was Lazarus&FPC or Delphi who diallowed to use CRLF char in resourcestrings. But to finish recursion of my thought, i wasn't able to regenerate .po file from resourcestring.

So, I'm sorry for my maybe incomprehensive writing (out of coffe), but can you help me with problem 1 (Format()) and 2 (regenerating PO file)?

V?clav Val??ek

Dne 29.5.2014 23:50, Jo?o Marcelo Vaz napsal(a):

I applied that.

Mattias

Thanks for apply.

Invented new problem with this - PO Checker - if I change number of %s, it causes error... I have idea to replace %s with another symbol or sequence of symbols. First suggestion is to use <br> which is well known from HTML... Or \n from bash/php/js... Any other suggestions?

V?clav Val??ek

Dne 2.6.2014 12:26, Mattias Gaertner napsal(a):

BTW, po files know \n for line breaks.
Have you tried that?

Mattias

No, I havent. But now I have and it works nice... As a bonus, PO file looks cleaner in POEdit with \n, because POEdit shows linebreak afrer \n. PO Checker has no problem with it too...

Thank you for advice, I'm gonna finish translation edits ASAP.

V?clav Val??ek

Dne 2.6.2014 21:20, Mattias Gaertner napsal(a):