po templates in quickly packages [Was: [Vote] Winconn]

Andrew Starr-Bochicchio a.starr.b at gmail.com
Wed Jul 11 17:04:26 UTC 2012


On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Bhavani Shankar R <bhavi at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Jonathan Carter (highvoltage)
> <jonathan at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>> On 2012-07-10 13:38, Michael Hall wrote:
>> The packaging looks ok, however:
>>
>>  * The files in winconn/po should be more explicit about licensing

> I found generic template for po/pot files in most packages I have seen
> till date I am not sure whether it should be manually edited for
> placing translations under a specific license.

I agree that this could be more clear, but the issue here is that
quickly generates the pot file automatically. Even if the app author
has not done anything special. Simply running:

$ quickly create ubuntu-application foo
$ quickly package --extras

Will generate a po/foo.pot with the licence header:

# SOME DESCRIPTIVE TITLE.
# Copyright (C) YEAR THE PACKAGE'S COPYRIGHT HOLDER
# This file is distributed under the same license as the PACKAGE package.
# FIRST AUTHOR <EMAIL at ADDRESS>, YEAR.

If you hand edit this file and put your own contact information into
it or try to licence it differently than the rest of the package,
running 'quickly package --extras` will overwrite that information
with the above header again. So I don't know how we can actually ask
app developers to be more clear here.

If the author has actually set up Rosseta on LP and merged
translations, the default lang.po file have:

# Bulgarian translation for winconn
# Copyright (c) 2012 Rosetta Contributors and Canonical Ltd 2012
# This file is distributed under the same license as the winconn package.
# FIRST AUTHOR <EMAIL at ADDRESS>, 2012.

If it were up to me, I'd argue that for the case where there is only a
pot file, we should accept these. It could be clearer, but with both
the header and what we can infer about the author's intentions I think
we can safely take the line that the "file is distributed under the
same license as" the package at face value.

In the second case, I still think this holds true as long as "2012
Rosetta Contributors and Canonical Ltd" is included as a copyright
holder in debian/copyright.

My opinion, FWIW.

Thanks!

-- Andrew Starr-Bochicchio

   Ubuntu Developer <https://launchpad.net/~andrewsomething>
   Debian Maintainer
<http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=a.starr.b%40gmail.com>
   PGP/GPG Key ID: D53FDCB1



More information about the App-review-board mailing list