On Apr 26, 2013, at 11:22 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: >>> As such - I do not see a material difference in how the projects that >>> are already using translate.a.o and how we function. >>> >> >> Do we bring it up to legal-discuss ? I am happy to do so. >> > > What question would we ask? > I see two possible questions, let me know if that isn't the case. > > If the question is 'Is accepting contributions from a plethora of > contributors to a project specific instance an acceptable way of doing > business' I think the answer is obvious that translate.a.o does > exactly that mechanism and there seem to be no issues from a process > standpoint. > > If the question is 'Can the Transifex Apache CloudStack l10n projects > serve as an official contribution point' - I personally am comfortable > saying that the message is currently clear that we treat them as > official. I also don't see a problem with doing so. Is this a point of > contention with anyone else? Is there a problem there that I am not > seeing? > > Is there another question?
I am fine with your statements and have no questions for legal-discuss. I was merely bringing it up in the open to make sure people knew about it. The only issue left IMHO is how we ack the authors of translations in git ? -sebastien
