Finalized proposal for changes to i18n in KF5

[Oswald Buddenhagen]

On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 03:05:25PM +0100, Chusslove Illich wrote:
> >> [: Chusslove Illich :]
> >> I'm not opposed to some additional bureaucracy in order to make the
> >> framework more accessible to potential users. [...]
> >
> > [: Oswald Buddenhagen :]
> > [...] i'd hate it to see my thoroughly engineered code being displaced by
> > a (possibly even slightly inferior) competitor just because i can't
> > compete on licensing compatibility terms.
> 
> One step back: who exactly would find KDE Frameworks licensing terms non-
> workable? I can't say I care what a party for which none of the options at
> http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy works will do. By "more
> accessible" I meant in technical and organizational terms.
> 
well, the mit/bsd/x11 licenses are in principle ok (though i suspect the
users in question still prefer CLA'd code, as then they have less legal
work, as it all goes under the contract they have with digia anyway).
it's probably more of a marketing problem to point out "but this kde
framework - unlike most others - comes with a no-strings-attached
license, and thus you can use it as a licensing-neutral dependency of
your frameworks".

> In fact, PO comments unfortunately have no multi-line semantics so the
> editor must present them as is, while it can rewrap PO contexts
> according to user's set width.
> 
interesting. for .ts comments (//: blah), i just defined that it is
flowed text.