Re: Distributed database with audit trail? (was: Re: Hebrew translations for Free Software projects)
הרעיון הראשון שעולה לי הוא להרחיב את Open-Tran.eu ולהחזיק את המסד שלנו בעצמנו. הבעיה היא שאני לא יודע עד כמה התקן TMX תומך בשדות: מתרגם ומאשר. כלומר שיתכן שנצטרך למצוא דרך לשכלל את התקן כך שהוא יתאים לצרכים האמורים. אופציה נוספת היא לשכלל את Moses TM, היתרון הגדול הוא שזאת מערכת מבוססת פרל והניתוח הסטטיסטי שלה מעולה והיא מאפשרת ליצור כללים באופן מאוד יעיל כדי לשפר את איכות התרגומים. אני מודה שלא קל לבחור וזה תלוי בהרבה גורמים אבל לבל נשכח שגם המיזמים שציינתי הם ממש בתחילת דרכם וגם הייעוד שלהם קצת מעורפל. בברכה, Yaron Shahrabani Hebrew translator 2011/4/16 moshe nahmias mosheg...@ubuntu.com לעשות משהו שמקשר בין הפרויקטים זה לא ענין של קבלת המידע כל פעם שזה מתעדכן? זה לא נראה קשה מידי, הבעיה שאין לי הרבה זמן פנוי כך שאני לא יכול להתחייב לפתח משהו כזה כרגע 2011/4/16 Omer Zak w...@zak.co.il לעשות משהו דומה אבל פתוח זו לא בעיה. האתגר הוא לתכנן משהו מבוזר שישרת פרויקטים רבים ויאפשר להם לשתף לקסיקונים (ועוד דברים) זה עם זה. On Sat, 2011-04-16 at 12:41 +0300, moshe nahmias wrote: אני מניח שאפשר יהיה לעשות משהו דומה אבל פתוח, לא? 2011/4/16 Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il בתאריך 16 באפריל 2011 11:04, מאת Omer Zak w...@zak.co.il: - לקסיקון של מונחים הספציפיים לפרויקט עם התרגומים שלהם זה משהו שחסר גם ל־MediaWiki+Translate. התכנה הזאת יודעת לזהות הודעות שחוזרות על עצמן באופן בסיסי מאוד ולא מספיק; יש משהו כזה גם ב־ rosetta. אני גם לא מכיר שום תכנה חופשית אחרת שיודעת לעשות את זה טוב, אבל מכיר אחת לא חופשית: ממשק התרגום של פייסבוק. חוץ מזה שהוא לא חופשי, הוא גם מלא בבאגים ובעיות אחרות. אבל את התכונה הטובה הזאת שלו הייתי שמח לאמץ. -- Never let beliefs, God or Gods incite war and hatred among human beings. My own blog is at http://www.zak.co.il/tddpirate/ My opinions, as expressed in this E-mail message, are mine alone. They do not represent the official policy of any organization with which I may be affiliated in any way. WARNING TO SPAMMERS: at http://www.zak.co.il/spamwarning.html ___ Discussions mailing list Discussions@hamakor.org.il http://hamakor.org.il/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discussions ___ Discussions mailing list Discussions@hamakor.org.il http://hamakor.org.il/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discussions ___ Discussions mailing list Discussions@hamakor.org.il http://hamakor.org.il/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discussions
Re: Hebrew Translation tools - freeform text
לגבי הרחבת Translate, אמיר אולי יחלוק עלי אבל היא קצת לא נוחה למטרות שלך, היא יותר מתאימה לטקסטים קצרים ולמחרוזות שמגיעות מראש כ־po. ניסית אותה במצב Page Translation? במצב הרגיל היא אכן מתאימה יותר למחרוזות קצרות, אבל Page Translation אמור להיות שונה. אני עומד לנסות אותה ב־userbase.kde.org ומזמין את כולכם לעשות את זה. -- אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי · Amir Elisha Aharoni http://aharoni.wordpress.com We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace. - T. Moore ___ Discussions mailing list Discussions@hamakor.org.il http://hamakor.org.il/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discussions
Re: Fwd: A Weird Interpretation of the GPL
Hi Mikhael, On Sunday 17 Apr 2011 16:11:24 Mikhael Goikhman wrote: Dear Shlomi, You are very confused here, because it seems you miss the juridical background. I strongly suggest you to start to learn the topic in depth for several years before making any further comments on it. You are right that I may be confused about it. I can try studying it to an extent, until I know enough, but I cannot halt production for the time being. I'd rather become a better software developer, essayist and writer (as well as in other kinds of digital arts) than a better legal expert. That is because I know well enough that I should avoid licensing all my original software under the GPL or LGPL (and in case I contribute to a third-party software under a non-permissive licence, then I almost always disclaim any rights and place myc contributions under the Public Domain / CC0 / MIT/X11-license). The definition of derived work can not be a part of a license, because this is a legal term discussed in Copyright Law. All licenses stop to work if this Copyright Law stops to work. Only the court can decide whether some piece of code or as a whole is a derived work of an other piece of code (in which case it should be bound by the license terms of the used code. if they allow derived works at all). This is all license agnostic. I.e. the court's decision on whether something is a derived work or wholly original work will be the same regardless of the license used (BSDL, GPL or proprietary). Fair enough, in that case, why did the GPL use the term derived work, instead of something less ambiguous and more commonly agreed upon? If I were to use a GPLed program or library, then I agree that whatever derived work I make from it is also GPLed. However, what is this elusive derived work according to the law? Does including code constitutes derived work? Does static linking constitutes a derived work? Does dynamic linking constitutes a derived work? Are Linux system calls to the Linux kernel constitute derived works? Are programs I execute using fork()+execve and then do something based on their output considered derived works? If I write a networked GPLed server, will my queries to it need to be GPLed as well? According to my understanding of how derived works in respect to the GPL is interpreted by most people, the derived works constitute of either including code in a larger source file, or alternatively static or dynamic linking (or similar mechanisms in other languages). But, obviously the NMAP people have interepreted derived work in consideration to the GPLv2 much more radically, and if the courts accept their interpretation, then all hell will break loose because every program generated by a C compiler, every data file output by any GPLed interpreters, and every program that makes a system call to the Linux kernel will need to be distributed under a GPL-compatible licence. If the GPL was a less ambiguous licence, it would spell exactly what can and cannot be done with it, rather than use the uncertain derived work term. The developers can have their vision of how the court will act in each case (and document it in FAQ or other documents), but they are not the authority here, and the license can't really help here. This question is out of the license scope. So you mean the text at the beginning of the NMAP licence does not hold water in court. It is wrong thus to call this vision as interpetation of a license. Your whole argument is wrongly based and void. It is astonishing that you still continue with it, even after several years. Well, it may be an interpretation of copyright law. But since the GPL uses the term derived work instead of a term, which, in the context of software, is mroe commonly understood - it is an interpretation of the GPL, and may be considered valid by some courts. Please don't use the screwed logic. The GPL is Free Software. The NMAP developers interpret the Copyright Law, not the license. I didn't say the GPLed was not a FOSS licence. However, I said that the NMAP people can interpret copyright so their GPLed software will no longer match the Free Software definition. Your phrases like violates the Free Software Definition or GPL allows such blatant misinterpretations of it or GPL licences are so vague are more than misplaced. Please reword them to: GPL being explicit is one of the most non-vague licenses. Developers knowingly using GPL do not misinterpret it. Copyright Law is vague regarding some software issues (linking?). Developers have slightly different visions on Copyright Law. If the GPL is using vague copyright law terms, then it is also, by implication, vague. Happy Passover! Regards, Shlomi Fish P.S: for a fun link see: http://www.gplv4.org/ . -- - Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/ Original Riddles -
Re: Fwd: A Weird Interpretation of the GPL
On 17 Apr 2011 21:15:39 +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote: I know well enough that I should avoid licensing all my original software under the GPL or LGPL This would be fine, but this is not quite what you do. You lead a long-time campaign against developers knowingly using GPL. Fair enough, in that case, why did the GPL use the term derived work, instead of something less ambiguous and more commonly agreed upon? Every license uses this concept of derived work. Redistribution with modification in BSDL is nothing else than derived work. The term modification is not any less or more vague than derived work. Only a court can decide whether my software X is a modification (or derived work in legal words) of your software Y. Judges can do this by comparing code and applying common sense. However, what is this elusive derived work according to the law? Does including code constitutes derived work? Does static linking constitutes a derived work? Does dynamic linking constitutes a derived work? Are Linux system calls to the Linux kernel constitute derived works? Are programs I execute using fork()+execve and then do something based on their output considered derived works? If I write a networked GPLed server, will my queries to it need to be GPLed as well? Copyright Law defines derivative works and pretty much forbids them by default (without an explicit permission from the original author). There are some minimal fair use cases that are allowed, you should just go and read Copyright Law and this article if you want details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derived_work The FOSS licenses permit derived works by adding explicit permissions on re/distribution. If the GPL was a less ambiguous licence, it would spell exactly what can and cannot be done with it, rather than use the uncertain derived work term. Wrong unbased claim. Please don't use it anywhere. So you mean the text at the beginning of the NMAP licence does not hold water in court. Judges will decide whether definition of derived work by NMAP does not conflict with the same definition in the law document. So neither me nor you can know whether it does hold water or not. I didn't say the GPLed was not a FOSS licence. However, I said that the NMAP people can interpret copyright so their GPLed software will no longer match the Free Software definition. What you said is not certainly true. It is also possible that your understanding of what the 4 freedoms include is not fully correct. For example, do you have a right to run a program that generates the GPL'd code? Yes, you have (running a program is freedom #1, many believe that it is allowed as fair use, even by Copyright Law alone, without a need in FOSS licenses that add the remaining 3 freedoms). But do you have the right to use this output however as you want, ignoring the fact that this is actually a GPL'd code? I don't think so. The NMAP people similarly don't think that some complex cases are included in freedom 1, and they are even certain that Copyright Law agrees with them. And surely (regardless of whether the NMAP position will be found correct or not in the court) this does not affect GPL or any other license in any way. If the GPL is using vague copyright law terms, then it is also, by implication, vague. Not any more vague than other licenses. So can I hope you stop your anti-GPL campaign now? P.S. If you really want to know how vague are the software licenses, you should ask the lawer. The FOSS licenses are relatively old and were inspected by thousands of lawers. Let me know if you find a single respectful lawer that does not understand GPL and/or who thinks that BSDL is less vague in all real-life cases. Happy Passover. Regards, Mikhael. ___ Discussions mailing list Discussions@hamakor.org.il http://hamakor.org.il/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discussions
