Ops! I forgot to add dev and doc as CC...
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: RGB ES <rgb.m...@gmail.com>
Date: 2013/6/3
Subject: Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites
[was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
To: l...@openoffice.apache.org
2013/6/3 Andrea Pescetti <pesce...@apache.org>
> On 02/06/2013 RGB ES wrote:
>
>> (Top posting, CC to dev, doc and l10n, not sure on which one it is better
>> to continue the discussion)
>> Do we want to "clone", for example, the documentation section on all the
>> localized sites, just translating it? On Sun times that was the idea, with
>> sub sites ("portals") like
>> http://wiki.services.**openoffice.org/wiki/**Documentation<http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation>
>> http://wiki.services.**openoffice.org/wiki/DE/**Documentation<http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/DE/Documentation>
>> http://wiki.services.**openoffice.org/wiki/FR/**Documentation<http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/FR/Documentation>
>> etc looking almost the same on all languages.
>>
>
> This can work. We also have this other infrastructure in place
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Main_Test<http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Main_Test>
> added by Claudio a few months ago. See
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Template:Lang<http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Template:Lang>
> to see how it works. I don't know which approach is best for our case.
>
> As for keeping subsites synchronized, in theory this allows to have a
> "Master copy" in English and then translate it in the various languages as
> volunteers become available. In practice, we can't stop someone from
> editing or creating a translated page to add new content in a language
> only, but ideally this would imply that the English version is updated to
> reflect the changes too.
>
>
> AFAIK, right now the only of those sub sites updated recently is the
>> French
>> one, though: several of those "portals" do not see activity since years.
>>
>
> Yes, but this does not mean that they are completely outdated: information
> in those pages is still current and relevant in most cases, and I think it
> makes sense to continue using it rather than "starting clean" there too
> (unless there are plans for a major rewrite).
>
All those "portal" pages are under PDL license (look at the categories at
the bottom of those pages). If we want to promote new wiki content under
Apache license, this means a problem. If I read this page right
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html
PDL is a sort of "copyleft" license.
Re-license those pages is not possible without the explicit consent of the
author, and those pages are so old that contact the authors is almost
impossible. Suppose we update those pages to point to the new material. A
potential contributor (or just a casual reader) will see the PDL notice on
the portal page, and no notice on the new pages: from the user perspective,
does this means that the new page is also under PDL? We know it isn't, but
this could be a cause of confusion, IMO. So, which is the best way to work
around this problem? Reimplement those pages, making a clear separation
between new material (under Apache) and legacy content?
Regards
Ricardo
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> l10n-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<l10n-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> l10n-help@openoffice.apache.**org<l10n-h...@openoffice.apache.org>
>
>
