Re: [RFR] templates://dokuwiki/{templates}
Christian PERRIER <bubulle@debian.org> writes:
> Quoting Justin B Rye (jbr@edlug.org.uk):
>> we want translators to translate the names? Some of the
>> non-anglophone wikipedias retain the English forms as if they were
>> canonical... oh well, I'll let debian-i18n-legal worry about that.
>
>
> I think it would be better to *not* mark the terms as translatable....
Given that these terms have been translated to many languages and the
licences has been also translated to many languages and there's effort
to make sure they follow local jurisdictions, I would argue that it is
more helpful to allow these terms to be translated. I'm not and expert
in any kind of law so I'm not hundred percent sure.
Maybe we could leave them as translatable and point translators to
http://creativecommons.org/affiliates to check situation in their local
area (and find correct terms for translation). There could be suggestion
to leave terms in English if the localization has not been done for
language in question.
I like the Christian's version below.
> Template: dokuwiki/wiki/license
> Type: select
> Choices: CC No Rights Reserved, CC Attribution, CC Attribution-ShareAlike, GNU Free Documentation License, CC Attribution-NonCommercial, CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
> Choices-C: cc-zero, cc-by, cc-by-sa, gnufdl, cc-by-nc, cc-by-nc-sa
> Default: cc-by-sa
> _Description: Wiki license (CC: "Creative Commons"):
> Please choose the license that should apply to the wiki content:
> .
> * CC No Rights Reserved: waive as many rights as legally possible;
> * CC Attribution: permissive license that only requires licensees
> to give credit to the author;
> * CC Attribution-ShareAlike / GNU FDL:
> copyleft-based free licenses (requiring
> modifications to be released under similar terms);
> * CC Attribution-NonCommercial / Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike:
> non-free licenses, in that they forbid
> commercial use.
Edu
Reply to: