Last modified: 2007-03-06 17:33:23 UTC
Hi, I've just translated the Chinese and Cantonese messages for the Makebot,
NewestPages, Patroller and UserImages extensions, the Chinese messages are
mostly dumped from the Chinese Wikipedia project. May the developers please
update the extension messages? And thanks 華德禹, 下一次登录, KilluaZaoldyeck
(翔風·艾倫·獲加), Hillgentleman and others to translate those messages in the
Chinese Wikipedia project.
Hope these new messages can be applied into other projects with lesser work. :)
thanks and regards
Created attachment 2895 [details]
This is the patch file of the Chinese language(zho) and Cantonese language(yue)
messages for the Makebot, NewestPages, Patroller and UserImages extensions.
The UserImages extension is not GPL.
So is that the UserImages extension cannot be localised at this moment?
And also the others are okay to commit the changes?
That's not the case; rather, be careful what you add into it; in an ideal
situation, the translations would have the same licence as the rest of the code
Currently, The Makebot extension is licensed as GPLv2+, the NewestPages and
Patroller extensions are licensed as GPLv2, and no licence details for
So I and the other authors need to publish those extensions under GPLv2? (I am
currently asking others to let the texts licensed under GPL, which is at
Ah, just go ahead and apply the patches. If the FSF or anyone else complains,
we'll tell them where to go.
So I need to take some time to add the author/license details and resubmit the
new patch later, also maybe need to fix some mistyped letters. :)
I think I need to split up the patches above to claim that which extension
translations are published to which license.
Created attachment 2975 [details]
Just added the author info of those extensions.
The patches for these extensions are hereby released under GPLv2 or later. See
the pages for licensing info:
And also, The UserImages extension should be licenced unde GPLv2 or later,
according to the README file of the MediaWiki Software. I get no idea what you
are saying at comment #4. As quoted from the readme file, 'The contributors hold
the copyright to this work, and it is licensed
under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2 or later
(see http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl.html). Derivative works and later
versions of the code must be free software licensed under the same
terms. This includes "extensions" that use MediaWiki functions or
variables; see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins
for details.' The extensions that created should be licensed under GPLv2 or
later, not in others as you are said at comment #4 (BSD licence).
Fine, that's simple to work around. As far as I'm concerned, it's dual-licenced.
So for your information, which extension(s) are dual-licenced? I hereby to
released under the same licence that the extension(s) have. :)
As far as I know that the files in the SVN repos does not mention thae which
licence(s) have been licensed. For example the UserImages extension:
From those files above, there's no such information (as of the revisions above)
to telling that those extensions are dual licensed. So I assume that
extension(s) is licenced under GPLv2 or later, according the information given
from the README file
But anyway, if any extensions above are dual (or triple et al) licenced, please
release the patch file under the same licence that those extensions have.
Applied with r20179