From 16ff9fb5548ac0a3a5d41e48cd1bd403f1703365 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Weblate Date: May 13 2022 15:39:03 +0000 Subject: Added translation using Weblate (Chinese (Simplified)) Co-authored-by: Weblate --- diff --git a/po/zh_Hans/master/pages/LicensingGuidelines.po b/po/zh_Hans/master/pages/LicensingGuidelines.po new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a641ffb --- /dev/null +++ b/po/zh_Hans/master/pages/LicensingGuidelines.po @@ -0,0 +1,514 @@ +# SOME DESCRIPTIVE TITLE +# Copyright (C) YEAR Free Software Foundation, Inc. +# This file is distributed under the same license as the PACKAGE package. +# FIRST AUTHOR , YEAR. +# +msgid "" +msgstr "" +"Project-Id-Version: PACKAGE VERSION\n" +"POT-Creation-Date: 2021-09-23 22:02+0000\n" +"PO-Revision-Date: YEAR-MO-DA HO:MI+ZONE\n" +"Last-Translator: Automatically generated\n" +"Language-Team: none\n" +"Language: zh_Hans\n" +"MIME-Version: 1.0\n" +"Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8\n" +"Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit\n" + +#. type: Title = +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:1 +#, no-wrap +msgid "Licensing Guidelines" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Title == +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:6 +#, no-wrap +msgid "Fedora Licensing" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:9 +msgid "" +"The goal of the Fedora Project is to work with the Linux community to create " +"a complete, general purpose operating system exclusively from Free and Open " +"Source software." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:15 +msgid "" +"All software in Fedora must be under licenses in the " +"{fedora-licensing-list}. This list is based on the licenses approved by the " +"https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses[Free " +"Software Foundation], https://opensource.org/licenses/[OSI] and consultation " +"with Red Hat Legal." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:18 +msgid "" +"If code is multiple licensed, and at least one of the licenses is approved " +"for Fedora, that code can be included in Fedora under the approved " +"license(s) (but only under the terms of the approved license(s))." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Title == +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:19 +#, no-wrap +msgid "License Text" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:23 +msgid "" +"If the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, " +"then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must " +"be included in `+%license+`. If the source package does not include the " +"text of the license(s), the packager should contact upstream and encourage " +"them to correct this mistake." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:32 +msgid "" +"In cases where the upstream has chosen a license that requires that a copy " +"of the license text be distributed along with the binaries and/or source " +"code, but does not provide a copy of the license text (in the source tree, " +"or in some rare cases, anywhere), the packager should do their best to point " +"out this confusion to upstream. This sometimes occurs when an upstream " +"project's only reference to a license is in a README (where they simply say " +"\"licensed under the FOO license\"), on their website, or when they simply " +"do not check a copy of the license into their Source tree. Common licenses " +"that require including their texts with all derivative works include ASL " +"2.0, EPL, BSD and MIT. Packagers should point out to upstream that by not " +"including a proper full license text, they are making it difficult or " +"impossible for anyone to comply with their desired license terms." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:35 +msgid "" +"However, in situations where upstream is unresponsive, unable, or unwilling " +"to provide proper full license text as part of the source code, and the " +"indicated license requires that the full license text be included, Fedora " +"Packagers must either:" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:44 +msgid "" +"Include a copy of what they believe the license text is intended to be, as " +"part of the Fedora package in `+%license+`, in order to remain in " +"compliance. It is worth noting that this may place some additional risk on " +"the packager, however, Fedora believes that this risk is minimized by the " +"fact that if the upstream disagrees with what we have distributed as the " +"full license text, they can easily remedy this by making full license text " +"available in the source code. Packagers who choose to do this should ensure " +"that they have exhausted all attempts to work with upstream to include the " +"license text as part of the source code, or at least, to confirm the full " +"license text explicitly with the upstream, as this minimizes the risk on the " +"packager. Packagers should also take copies of license texts from reliable " +"and canonical sources (such as the Fedora Software Licenses page, the FSF " +"licenses page, or the OSI license list), whenever possible." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:46 +msgid "Choose not to package that software for Fedora." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:50 +msgid "" +"It is important to reiterate that in situations where the indicated license " +"does not imply a requirement that the license be distributed along with the " +"source/binaries, Fedora packagers are NOT required to manually include the " +"full license text when it is absent from the source code, but are still " +"encouraged to point out this issue to upstream and encourage them to remedy " +"it." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Title === +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:52 +#, no-wrap +msgid "Subpackage Licensing" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:56 +msgid "" +"If a subpackage is dependent (either implicitly or explicitly) upon a base " +"package (where a base package is defined as a resulting binary package from " +"the same source RPM which contains the appropriate license texts as " +"%license), it is not necessary for that subpackage to also include those " +"license texts as %license." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:59 +msgid "" +"However, if a subpackage is independent of any base package (it does not " +"require it, either implicitly or explicitly), it must include copies of any " +"license texts (as present in the source) which are applicable to the files " +"contained within the subpackage." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Title === +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:60 +#, no-wrap +msgid "License Clarification" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:68 +msgid "" +"In cases where the licensing is unclear, it may be necessary to contact the " +"copyright holders to confirm the licensing of code or content. In those " +"situations, it is _always_ preferred to ask upstream to resolve the " +"licensing confusion by documenting the licensing and releasing an updated " +"tarball. However, this is not always possible to achieve. In such cases, " +"it is acceptable to receive confirmation of licensing via email. A copy of " +"the email, containing full headers, must be included as a source file " +"(marked as %license) in the package. This file is considered part of the " +"license text." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Title == +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:69 +#, no-wrap +msgid "License: field" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:74 +msgid "" +"Every Fedora package must contain a `+License:+` entry. Maintainers should " +"be aware that the contents of the `+License:+` field are understood to not " +"be legally binding (only the source code itself is), but maintainers must " +"make every possible effort to be accurate when filling the `+License:+` " +"field." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:77 +msgid "" +"The License: field refers to the licenses of the contents of the *_binary_* " +"rpm. When in doubt, ask." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:81 +msgid "" +"If a source package generates multiple binary packages, the License: field " +"may differ between them if necessary. This implies that a single spec may " +"have multiple per-subpackage License: tags. Each of those License: tags " +"must comply with all applicable guidelines." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Title === +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:82 +#, no-wrap +msgid "Valid License Short Names" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:87 +msgid "" +"The `+License:+` field must be filled with the appropriate license Short " +"License identifier(s) from the \"Good License\" tables on the " +"{fedora-licensing} page. If your license does not appear in the tables, it " +"needs to be sent to legal@lists.fedoraproject.org (note that this list is " +"moderated, only members may directly post). If the license is approved, it " +"will be added to the appropriate table." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Title === +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:88 +#, no-wrap +msgid "\"Distributable\"" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:96 +msgid "" +"In the past, Fedora (and Red Hat Linux) packages have used \"Distributable\" " +"in the `+License:+` field. In virtually all of these cases, this was not " +"correct. Fedora no longer permits packages to use \"Distributable\" as a " +"valid License. If your package contains content which is freely " +"redistributable without restrictions, but does not contain any license other " +"than explicit permission from the content owner/creator, then that package " +"can use \"Freely redistributable without restriction\" as its `+License:+` " +"identifier." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Title === +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:97 +#, no-wrap +msgid "Firmware" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:100 +msgid "" +"The `+License:+` field for any firmware that disallows modification should " +"be set to: \"Redistributable, no modification permitted\"." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Title === +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:101 +#, no-wrap +msgid "Versioned licenses" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:107 +msgid "" +"Some licenses include the version as part of the Short License Identifier. " +"This is only done when multiple versions of the license differ in " +"significant ways (e.g. one revision is GPLv2 incompatible, while a later " +"version is not). Be careful to ensure that you use the correct Short " +"License Identifier, as shown in the tables on the {fedora-licensing} page." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Title === +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:108 +#, no-wrap +msgid "\"or later version\" licenses" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:114 +msgid "" +"Some licenses state that either the current version of the license or later " +"versions may be used. It is important to note when a license states this. " +"When a license has an \"or later version\" clause, we note that by appending " +"a + to the Short License Identifier. Please note that there are already " +"special Short License Identifiers for GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+, there is no need " +"to append an additional + for those cases." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Title === +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:115 +#, no-wrap +msgid "GPL and LGPL" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:119 +msgid "" +"Since compatibility of code and library linking is especially complex with " +"GPL and LGPL, Fedora packages can no longer simply use \"GPL\" or \"LGPL\" " +"in the `+License:+` field. Please refer to the {fedora-licensing} page for " +"the acceptable identifiers, and be careful to ensure that you select the " +"correct one." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Title === +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:120 +#, no-wrap +msgid "Dual Licensing Scenarios" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:125 +msgid "" +"If your package is dual licensed (or triple licensed, etc.), the spec must " +"reflect this by using \"or\" as a separator. Note that this only applies " +"when the contents of the package are actually under a dual license, and not " +"when the package contains items under multiple, distinct, and independent " +"licenses." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:129 +msgid "" +"Example: Package libfoo is dual licensed as Mozilla Public License v1.1 and " +"GNU General Public License v2 or later. The package spec must have:" +msgstr "" + +#. type: delimited block . +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:132 +#, no-wrap +msgid "License: MPLv1.1 or GPLv2+\n" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Title === +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:134 +#, no-wrap +msgid "Multiple Licensing Scenarios" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:139 +msgid "" +"If your package contains files which are under multiple, distinct, and " +"independent licenses, then the spec must reflect this by using \"and\" as a " +"separator. Fedora maintainers are highly encouraged to avoid this scenario " +"whenever reasonably possible, by dividing files into subpackages " +"(subpackages can each have their own `+License:+` field)." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:144 +msgid "" +"Example: Package bar-utils contains some files under the Python License, " +"some other files under the GNU Lesser General Public License v2 or later, " +"and one file under the BSD License (no advertising). The package spec must " +"have:" +msgstr "" + +#. type: delimited block . +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:147 +#, no-wrap +msgid "License: Python and LGPLv2+ and BSD\n" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:152 +msgid "" +"In addition, the package must contain a comment explaining the multiple " +"licensing breakdown. The actual implementation of this is left to the " +"maintainer. Some suggested implementations include" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:154 +msgid "A comment right above the `+License:+` field:" +msgstr "" + +#. type: delimited block . +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:158 +#, no-wrap +msgid "" +"# The entire source code is GPLv2+ except foolib/ which is BSD\n" +"License: GPLv2+ and BSD\n" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:161 +msgid "" +"Including a file as `+%license+` which contains the licensing breakdown for " +"the packaged files, then using:" +msgstr "" + +#. type: delimited block . +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:164 +#, no-wrap +msgid "# For a breakdown of the licensing, see PACKAGE-LICENSING \n" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:167 +msgid "Noting the license above the appropriate %files section:" +msgstr "" + +#. type: delimited block . +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:179 +#, no-wrap +msgid "" +"%files\n" +"%doc Changes\n" +"# Python\n" +"%{_bindir}/cobra-util\n" +"%{_bindir}/viper-util\n" +"# LGPLv2+\n" +"%{_bindir}/gnu-util\n" +"%{_bindir}/rms-util\n" +"# BSD\n" +"%{_bindir}/berkeley-util\n" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Title === +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:181 +#, no-wrap +msgid "Combined Dual and Multiple Licensing Scenario" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:186 +msgid "" +"If you are unlucky enough that your package possesses items multiple, " +"distinct, and independent licenses...AND some of those items are dual " +"licensed, you must note the dual licensed items by wrapping them with " +"parenthesis (). Otherwise, the guidelines for Dual and Multiple Licensing " +"apply." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:191 +msgid "" +"Example: Package baz-utils contains some files under the Python License, " +"some other files under the GNU Lesser General Public License v2 or later, " +"one file under the BSD License, no advertising, and one file which is dual " +"licensed as Mozilla Public License v1.1 and GNU General Public License v2 or " +"later. The package spec must have:" +msgstr "" + +#. type: delimited block . +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:194 +#, no-wrap +msgid "License: Python and LGPLv2+ and BSD and (MPLv1.1 or GPLv2+)\n" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:198 +msgid "" +"Since this is a multiple licensing scenario, the package must contain a " +"comment explaining the multiple licensing breakdown. The actual " +"implementation of this is left to the maintainer." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Title === +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:199 +#, no-wrap +msgid "Mixed Source Licensing Scenario" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:206 +msgid "" +"In some cases, it is possible for a binary to be generated from multiple " +"source files with compatible, but differing licenses. Thus, the binary file " +"would actually have simultaneous dual licensing (an AND, as opposed to an " +"OR). For example, it is possible that a binary is generated from a source " +"file licensed as BSD with advertising, and another source file licensed as " +"QPL (which specifies that modifications must be shipped as patches). In " +"this scenario, we'd wrap the list of licenses for that binary with " +"parenthesis, example:" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:208 +msgid "" +"Package spot-utils contains some files under the Python License, but one of " +"the files is generated from a BSD with advertising source file and a QPL " +"source file." +msgstr "" + +#. type: delimited block . +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:211 +#, no-wrap +msgid "License: Python and (BSD with advertising and QPL)\n" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Title == +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:213 +#, no-wrap +msgid "Public Domain" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc:219 +msgid "" +"Works which are clearly marked as being in the Public Domain, and for which " +"no evidence is known to contradict this statement, are treated in Fedora as " +"being in the Public Domain, on the grounds that the intentions of the " +"original creator are reflected by such a use, even if due to regional " +"issues, it may not have been possible for the original creator to fully " +"abandon all of their their copyrights on the work and place it fully into " +"the Public Domain. If you believe that a work in Fedora which is marked as " +"being in the Public Domain is actually available under a copyright license, " +"please inform us of this fact with details, and we will immediately " +"investigate the claim." +msgstr ""