Claude,
To me you could just say "we use pootle to support translators" and
that's it. Like someone said one day "we will use CVS to support
developers". I don't see any difference.
The difference is that pootle doesn't support all the features that
Eclipse translations need. Off the top of my head, it doesn't have:
output to Eclipse/Java properties files not an audit trail/history of
each string. Thus we would have to modify the pootle code in order to
use it. We don't have to modify the CVS code at all in order to use
CVS.
Therein lies the fundamental difference.
Now, we could modify the pootle code inside the Foundation and just use
it on a server, like we do with some of our bugzilla instances.
However, then we (the Foundation staff) would be stuck with supporting
Babel/pootle forever and doing all the coding work. We (the Foundation
staff) do not have the resources to do that - Babel must be a community
effort with others contributing to the coding. Thus either (a) Babel
has to be an Eclipse project = no GPL or (b) we just use a raw pootle
install and everyone contibutes to pootle = Foundation staff cannot
participate = project never gets started.
But coming back to the CVS example, the people who are administrating
CVS in the Foundation did certainly contribute to it be it only by
filling bug tickets or feature requests.
Yes, but according to our Board, filing bug tickets and contributing
code are different activities. We can (and do) do the former against
GPLed projects; we don't do the latter.
I would not want you to think I am a troll so I will stop bugging you further :)
Bug away - you haven't bothered me yet :-)
I appreciate your point of view, I really do, and if we had a different
set of IP policies at the Eclipse Foundation, your suggestion is very
reasonable. However, we have a certain set of IP policies that work
well in most situations and our members are pleased with those
policies, so we must follow them.
- Bjorn
--
[end of message]
|