Closed comradekingu closed 6 years ago
Hiri is indeed not a free software (they are paying for the service) and they should specify a license properly, I will get in touch with them.
@nijel That invalidates every current translation. Wouldn't even be legal if it was specified. It also makes it impossible to advertise hosted Weblate as a libre software platform.
I am not here to complain. Tell me how much they pay you and I will send you the money so that this cancer can be dropped. The reason I use hosted Weblate and recommend it to people is because it doesn't do things like this. Will pay per IBAN transfer.
The price list is publicly available: https://weblate.org/hosting/ It's not hidden anywhere - Hosted Weblate is used for both free and commercial software. Customers like this allow me to run the service, though most of them do not operate their translations publicly so it's harder to notice that they exist :-).
I have no problem with proprietary software being hidden and paying for the service. Translation is the service, driven by translators. Lumping in proprietary software with all libre software, without any mention, takes away my will to help build and contribute to Weblate.
Those prices are a unfunny joke compared to what commercial translation agencies pay to have things translated. I am more than happy to foot the bill to not have the good name of Weblate tarnished by illegal and cancerous practices. That goes for this and any other project.
Hoping I haven't inadvertently helped any such effort.
I've never advertised Hosted Weblate service as hosting for libre software only. It started for my projects only and gradually evolved into hosting platform with free tier for libre software (well not only software).
These prices are not for translating, but for hosting, usually commercial projects come with their translators who actually do the translating job. Weblate is just a service which helps them to manage the translations and push them back.
The translators should always check if the translated project license matches their preference. Everybody will draw the line somewhere else what he finds acceptable. The missing license information on Hiri was indeed an unfortunate omission, but I've already fixed that.
It might make sense to highlight OSI or FSF approved licenses, though I'm not really sure this would be good indication of anything. For example Beerware license is neither of these while it is extremely permissive (yes there is project on Hosted Weblate licensed under this license).
That it has been a platform for only libre software, is a benefit in contrast to the incentive of bringing on proprietary additions for profit. The libre software translation community is one more closely knit than even professional agencies. With the tools improving and additional growth, there is no reason Weblate should not be the natural platform. If it fails to make the distinction, it adopts one of the worst qualities of just about every other platform. As a translator I don't want to constantly check licenses. It is enough for me that I am contributing towards the Weblate database corpus, helping root out errors as I go. I imagine the person translating Hiri to Estonian did not check either, which is a translation made after Hiri strings were put on Weblate. Moreover, the source strings in Hiri are garbage, and I neither can, nor want to change them. This is another apsect predicated on all licenses being libre.
Beerware is FSF approved. ISC is too, Whereas "WTFPL" v1 I can't find info about, v2 is at-least GPL-compatible https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses The idea of having one proprietary project branded as "commercial", is misleading. The GPL license is just as commercial, and some of the GPLv3+ projects on hosted Weblate are commercial. However, regardless of name, doing freelance voluntary work does not sign away copyright. Because that is not how copyright works in any jurisdiction I am aware of. It doesn't even work with CLA from Norwegian territory. Selling the notion that it isn't, is not a sound business plan.
To bring in more money, take my solely charitable offer, and possibly offer donation status in various ways, to projects that donate towards Weblate. I have put effort towards goodwill of the sort, and am happy to keep doing so.
You're right that commercial name was wrong there, I've just changed it to proprietary.
As for the money, I don't think donations will work good enough. I currently spent about half-time job developing and maintaining Weblate and I need to live from something. The commercial hosting is currently the way to pay the bills for me. The current income from donations (on BountySource and Libeapay) is nowhere near to that.
Anyway as most of the commercially hosted projects are private they don't seem to be problematic in this regard. On the other side increasing translators community on Hosted Weblate might motivate more companies to take this approach, so it should be addressed somehow.
@comradekingu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL#Version_1
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.
I think we should figure out some reasonable way to indicate license information in the UI to avoid such confusion. As there is more such information which might be worth displaying I've created separate issue for that, see https://github.com/WeblateOrg/weblate/issues/2194
I want a checkbox, turned off by default, to enable showing proprietary projects in any capacity. Don't want them in the subscription list, don't want the suggestions, etc.
I've created separate issue for that: https://github.com/WeblateOrg/weblate/issues/2263
https://feedback.hiri.com/downloads/license.txt
Hiri reserves for itself copyright to original content, without CLA, and also to change the terms at any time. That is illegal, CLAs are not valid in all jurisdictions, which btw. are not governed by Irish law, as said. Specifically the license can be terminated by license at any time. There is a implied consent given here, without agreeing to anything. That is not legal with someone elses content.
The whole thing undermines all the free software on hosted Weblate.