Re: [babel-dev] Does Eclipse Babel suffer from the "not invented here" s

["Claude Vedovini" <claude@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bjorn,

First of all I would like to say I really appreciate you take time to
talk with me, you never heard about me and you could just ignore me.
But you don't :)

>  Yes but... Babel is a full Eclipse project whereas CVS is not. Because
> Babel is a full Eclipse project, the code hosted in our source code control
> system for the community to work on is considered a "delivery" and thus it
> cannot be GPL.

It seemed to me Babel was about localizing the Eclipse projects, you
may need to develop some infrastructure (for release engineering for
example which is specific to the foundation) but I am afraid most of
the Babel project will finally turn into building a localization
platform instead of actually localizing Eclipse.
To me you could just say "we use pootle to support translators" and
that's it. Like someone said one day "we will use CVS to support
developers". I don't see any difference.


>  Next you're going to say if we contributed to Pootle at its native server,
> we wouldn't have to have the Pootle code in the eclipse.org source code
> control system and thus the GPL issues wouldn't apply ...but... Eclipse
> Foundation employees (e.g., Denis, Gabe, and myself) do not work on GPL code
> (anywhere) and thus we would not have been able to help get Babel off the
> ground.

You certainly have good reasons for such a policy, I will not discuss this.
But coming back to the CVS example, the people who are administrating
CVS in the Foundation did certainly contribute to it be it only by
filling bug tickets or feature requests.

I would not want you to think I am a troll so I will stop bugging you further :)
Many thanks,
Claude

On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 7:34 PM, Bjorn Freeman-Benson
<bjorn.freeman-benson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>  Claude,
>  Yes but... Babel is a full Eclipse project whereas CVS is not. Because
> Babel is a full Eclipse project, the code hosted in our source code control
> system for the community to work on is considered a "delivery" and thus it
> cannot be GPL.
>
>  Next you're going to say if we contributed to Pootle at its native server,
> we wouldn't have to have the Pootle code in the eclipse.org source code
> control system and thus the GPL issues wouldn't apply ...but... Eclipse
> Foundation employees (e.g., Denis, Gabe, and myself) do not work on GPL code
> (anywhere) and thus we would not have been able to help get Babel off the
> ground. Given that Babel had been discussed for almost two years with no
> progress before we (Denis and Gabe) stepped up to make it real, it appears
> that we needed Foundation employees to give it a kick start.
>
>  So, with all the considerations involved, starting from the Aptana code
> base was the best we could do.
>
>  - Bjorn
>
>
>  License issues come into play only if you plan to deliver code, not
> when you use it
>
>
> --
>  [end of message]
> _______________________________________________
>  babel-dev mailing list
>  babel-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>  https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/babel-dev
>
>