On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 11:40:41AM +0100, Jean-Baptiste Holcroft wrote:
Le 2020-01-09 10:56, Daniel P. Berrangé a écrit :
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 10:48:48AM +0100, Piotr Drąg wrote:
> > It’s absolutely unacceptable. I’m quite baffled, to be honest. What is
> > their reasoning for this?
> Why should it be unacceptable ?
I feel like this is like saying: translation work is not part of our project
and we don't value it as much as we value what dev do.
Yes, I don't disagree in that assessment. It is not a very positive
view to take of translators work :-(
In addition, Fedora FPCA says if you don't know what license your
contributing to, you should expect your work as CC SA 3.0.
If something is explicitly stated as being "public domain" then the
license is known, so the default CC SA 3.0 choice doesn't apply.
This is a protection for Fedora contributors: attribution and share
Here, with a Public Domain, you have none of it, so a contributor could feel
like betrayed not having a warning.
If 'share alike' is something Translation team considers a requirement,
that rules out most permissive licenses. That's a valid position to take,
but it does limit what software Fedora translation team will work with
quite a lot.
I'm in favor of including translators in application credits, the
Likewise, I do personally think it is good to give attribution / credit
to everyone involved in contributing to the project.
My key thought/point is that the real question is broader than just
"is public domain acceptable". It is about stating what subset of OSS
licenses in general are acceptable for translation work, because the
distinction between "Public domain" and other very permissive licenses
is quite minor in practice.