Dual license i18n.rst to GNU GPLv3+


@nijel expressed interest in copy/pasting part of the SecureDrop internationalisation documentation to the Weblate documentation. Weblate is GPLv3 but SecureDrop is AGPLv3.

For this copy/paste to be possible the file should be dual licensed to GPLv3. The copyright holders are Freedom of the Press Foundation (for Conor Schaefer and Jennifer Helsby) and a few individuals listed below:

git log --format='%aN' i18n.rst | sort -u
Conor Schaefer
Jennifer Helsby
Loic Dachary

Here is a poll where all copyright holders can say if they agree to such a dual license.

  • I agree that i18n.rst is released under GPLv3+ in addition to AGPLv3
  • I refuse that i18n.rst is released under GPLv3+ in addition to AGPLv3

0 voters

@aydwi @redshiftzero @conorsch @heartsucker what say you ?

P.S. Note that although Jennifer Helsby is welcome to vote, from a legal standpoint Conor Schaefer vote is the one that counts because, in his capacity as CTO of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, he has authority to make that kind of decision.

Sounds good to me, @dachary, thanks for organizing. How do you propose to formalize or document the dual-licensing? Is this something we’ll need to place inside the repo’s LICENSE file, or perhaps in comments wihtin the i18n.rst file?

@conorsch I believe this publicly available statement is proof enough that the people who voted are in favor of this dual license for this specific file. It is not rock solid but it is clear and understood by everyone at this point in time.

Although we could make it formal by adding a statement in the file itself, I don’t believe it would be useful. If new authors (people who did not vote here) add to the file there is a very good chance they will not not notice the statement and rightfully assume their work is under the default SecureDrop license, i.e. AGPLv3.

I’m hopeful that this rather long file will become smaller over time. And that it will increasingly point to the standard weblate documentation. In other words, I think we’re fine with just having this public thread for now, unless @nijel thinks he needs something better.

Does that sound sensible?

Absolutely, @dachary—totally on board with that plan!

1 Like