Relicensing pt_BR translation file

[Theodore Tso]

On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 01:08:46PM -0300, Wagner Bruna wrote:
> 
> My understanding is that a work derived from a GPLv2 work must be
> *available* as GPLv2, so a BSD translation would qualify (the combined
> work (Mercurial + translation) will surely be available as GPLv2,
> since the translation license is compatible).
> 
> I understand that legal issues sometimes don't follow logic, but I got
> this interpretation from the following FAQ item:
> 
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CombinePublicDomainWithGPL
> 
> That suggests a GPLv2 work could include parts available under
> different licenses (and fwiw, I do understand that "public domain"
> isn't a license).

A work derived from a GPLv2 work must be *available* as GPLv2, yes.
And it is also true that you can combine a code licensed under a
3-clause "modern" BSD license with GPLv2 code.  And it is also true
that *if* you can identify what code was previously licensed under a
BSD license or what had been released as public domain code, you can
*extract* what had been released under the BSD license or public
domain, and release it under the original license. 

But all of that is irrelevant.  The problem is the *combined* work
must be released under terms that satisfy *all* of the licenses that
were used to create the combined work.  Given that the BSD 3-clause
license is more lenient, what that means in practice is the GPLv2
license is the more important one from a legal analysis point of view.
This is especially true if you consider what a translaction file looks
like.  Here's an example from e2fsck's pl.po file.

#: e2fsck/badblocks.c:45
msgid "while sanity checking the bad blocks inode"
msgstr "podczas sprawdzania poprawności i-węzła wadliwych bloków"

The msgid portion comes from e2fsck, which is under the GPLv2 license.
So that line is very clearly GPLv2 licensed.  It *must* be because it
is derived from GPL code.  The msgstr portion, which is the work of
the translator, is derived from the msgid code, so while the copyright
*ownership* of that line of code belongs to the translator, the only
right the translator has of making the derived work comes from the
copyright license of the original textual string.  Since the original
textual string is under the GPLv2, the translator only is allowed to
create the derived work if he or she releases it under the terms of
the GPLv2.

Even if you want to make some complicated argument that says that the
derived works argument doesn't apply to translations (it most
certainly does; for the same reason you aren't allowed to translate a
book without permission of the copyright owner of the original book,
and for a book licensed under the GPL or GFDL, the terms of the GPL or
GFDL require that the translation to be under the same license as the
original work), the fact that there is the original text in the
translation file, which is *definitely* under the GPLv2, makes it
clear there is no way in the world that the translation file could be
released under a BSD license.

I suspect someone needs to contact the SFLC and FSF and let them know
that Ubuntu is trying to induce people to violate the GPL, but much
easier solution is simply to use the Translation Project, which does
have a proper understanding of copyright law.

							- Ted