On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 5:50 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> On Mar 7, 2016 12:28 PM, "Kazuki Aranami" <kazuki.aran...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > 2016-03-06 13:09 GMT+09:00 William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>: > > > > Hi William, > > > > > Please share the license terms and conditions granted > > > by www.transifex.com for OSS, so we may evalute this? > > > > This Web site is a translation-only pay site. Translation dedicated > > tool can also be used. > > Then, if the OSS of the project, this Web site, you can use free of > charge. > > > > I, is the project leader. Project members also, you can increase. > > Is such a thing to use the Web site, the rule violation? > > It will entirely depend on the terms and conditions of the translation > tool (be it a program, or web service, etc). > > If the license terms of the tool are compatible with the Apache License, > use of such tools is encouraged as long as the quality of the translation > is up to par (or the results are significantly corrected.) > > If the terms are not compatible (additional restrictions, for example), > then the specific tool cannot be used. > > That's why I asked for a pointer to the license that service applies to > the translated output of the tool you wish to use. > I researched the site, and failed to locate what terms and conditions apply to any 'generated' results, but it generated more questions :) The basic premise of non-ASF hosted content hosted over on https://www.transifex.com/product/ doesn't appear to fit our model. Our localized documentation is not only provided at the canonical location http://httpd.apache.org/docs/ but is also provided in all of the source releases we ship and installed to the user for their use. We have gone to great lengths to ensure we support parallel language content on the site. Even though our website is the 'most current' and correct copy of the docs, that local copy of the documentation content is still shared and available to the user of the software. And our content build system that I mentioned earlier helps us track how far 'out of date' a given page's content is for any given translation. So if you are asking if it makes sense to 'host' a translation at transifex? My personal answer (worth about $0.02) is no, that all ASF translation efforts should end up merged back with the ASF project sources, if they are recognized as "the" ASF official translation. The terms of use was very specific, and said nothing about using the results of any content generated by transifex. That information must be buried somewhere on their site. But if you are asking 'is it possible' - as long as any resource that uses ASF sources (including the docs) cannot be construed to be an 'official' distribution, then it is possible for any entity to publish a derivative of the Apache HTTP Server documentation. And that would include an translated work. If we can find a way to use transifex services as a "development tool" that serves translators and reviewers better than the mailing list, bug tracking system and subversion repository alone, then we should consider doing so. If a given translation team prefers using google docs, for example, that should also be considered. The end result of any ASF-recognized should still be patches to the official subversion repository and hosted for public consumption on http://{projectname}.apache.org/docs/. How that happens is all negotiable.
