Hi Simon, > I have packaging of gnulib-l10n for Debian here: > > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/gnulib-l10n/
Even a post-install test is included. Nice! :) > 1) Where is version controlled sources? I see that README, configure.ac > etc looks hand written, so I presume these are stored somewhere, and I > think it makes sense to keep a git repository around for this. The sources are in gnulib/gnulib-l10n/, together with a rule in gnulib/Makefile. > 2) Regarding license, the README says: > > "It is under LGPLv2+." > > Which is a bit thin. First, the file COPYING contains LGPL version 2.1 > so clarifying which version helps. LGPL 2.1 or newer is what is meant. See the file gnulib/etc/license-notices/LGPLv2+. > Is it intentional that configure.ac > Makefile.am are GPLv3+? Yes, why not? The configure.ac and Makefile.am are not (not even partially) contained in the resulting binaries; therefore one can have a build system under GPLv3+ in a package whose license is LGPLv2+. > The essential part of this package, the po/*.po > files, have various different license that aren't always completely > clear, and not always LGPLv2+. For example po/af.po: > > # coreutils-5.2.1.af.po. > # Copyright (C) 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > # This file is distributed under the same license as the PACKAGE package. > # Petri Jooste <rkw...@puknet.puk.ac.za>, 2004. > > Coreutils or gnulib? GPL or LGP? > > po/ca.po: > > # GNU Mailutils Catalan translation. > # Copyright © 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > # This file is distributed under the same license as the mailutils package. > # Jordi Mallach <jo...@gnu.org>, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005. > > Huh? > > # Japanese gnulib messages > # Copyright (C) 2000, 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > # This file is distributed under the same license as the gnulib package. > > Generally these non-specific license referrals are not clear. What > license is gnulib released under? I don't think that is well-defined. > > # Norwegian messages for GNU textutils (bokm<E5>l dialect) > # Copyright (C) 1996 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > # Eivind Tagseth <eivi...@multinet.no>, 1996, 1997, 1999. > > Textutils? I'm CCing Benno, the TP coordinator. Benno, is there a way to guarantee that the translations of gnulib-l10n.pot are under LGPLv2+ ? For translators who have sent a disclaimer to the FSF, this is probably a non-issue, but what about the other translators? Re the license of gnulib. For the purpose of these translations, LGPLv2+ should be used. What is not clear to me is: where should this be stated? Should the formula "under the same license as the gnulib package" be avoided in this case? Bruno
