[IndianGirl] I want to teach my husband a lesson about leaving me home alone all the time by cheating on him... any guys interested?
My husband goes out of town on business all the time. I think he cheats on me when he is away, because when he gets back he is never in the mood. Well I am always in the mood and I need a guy to secretly pick up his slack in the bed. Click here to http://www.adultregional.com/tracy.php Take a look at my pics and http://www.adultregional.com/mycam.php my contact information and give me a try if you like them. -Stacy --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "IndianGirl" group. To post to this group, send email to IndianGirl@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/IndianGirl?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Licenses of .po files, and translations
Hi, I need a clarification on the licensing of .po files. As per my understanding, both the .pot template files, and the .po files for individual languages, assert copyright, and licence restrictions, with the usual licensing terms being the same as for the package itself. Thus, as I see it, for an application licensed under the GPL, the .pot files, and the .po files are also GPL-licensed. Therefore, the following requirements ensue for a GPLed application: (a) A distribution with local-language translations of the application is obliged to provide, upon request, copies of the source .po file for each language. (b) Any modifications to existing .po file translations for any language also automatically fall under the GPL. I would like to hear whether people agree with this. Regards, Gora ___ gnome-i18n mailing list gnome-i18n@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n
Re: Non-community-based approaches to localisation
(Deleted all personal addresses. Get yer info from lists.) On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 12:23:13 +0100 "Simos Xenitellis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] Dear Simos, Thank you for your message. Such input, from yourself, and other GNOME localisation folk, who undoubtedly have a broader perspective, is exactly the reason that I posted this message here. It is possible that I am letting my own parochial prejudices outweigh more long-term interests. > The part that I think that is surprising is that a big organisation > (in this case C-DAC), took the initiative to put resources to carry > out large-scale open-source localisation. [...] Yes, the fact that they did do the localisation is great, and something that at least I personally have lauded. > The fact that the open-source l10n communities in India were not > consulted before the C-DAC localisation work, looks to me as a common > mistake, and does not surprise me. The way that open-source > communities work is just too different, and you can expect such > issues. I will concede your point about government agencies not knowing how (also, at least in India, probably not able) to deal with a FOSS community; with its rambunctious, devil-may-care attitude. However, this is far from being an isolated case, and in my past experience over the past five or so years, it has always been the FOSS community, largely with *unpaid* (and, I do wish to emphasise that fact, given the huge amounts of money that have gone into CDAC work) volunteers that have tried to bend over backwards. > What I see that was missing and still is, is a person to act as > liaison between the open-source localisation communities of India and > C-DAC. I took up somewhat this role during the discussion some months > ago, but it just looks awkward for me to be further involved. > Could someone pick up this task? Let me give you an example of such an effort, from *my* personal experience. My native tongue is Oriya, and when CDAC started localising OpenOffice into Oriya, I was pleasantly surprised to have the head of the effort contact me, and was all gung-ho about it. We gave them what we had of the OpenOffice glossary (1/3rd complete, from my personal effort), and asked them to finish the glossary, and talk to us so that we could ensure consistency. No response from CDAC for several months, despite several reminders from my side. Six months or so, later I get a message saying that Oriya localisation of OpenOffice is complete, though now it has been three years and they have apparently not yet deemed it fit to see that OpenOffice packages this. Also, the translations have little relation to our glossary. For OpenOffice, please do not take just my word for it. Please talk to Louis Suarez-Potts, one of the leading lights of OpenOffice. I have little doubt that other community localisers have had similar experiences. > What you have in hand is that there is a big organisation which showed > interest some months ago with l10n, and it might still have interest > in open-source localisation. It's up to you to lead the way with > C-DAC, in localisation or other open-source activities. Sure, we are willing to meet them three-quarters of the way, and definitely there are encouraging signs from among the younger folk at CDAC. This whole thread arose because someone from CDAC was actually willing to approach us. But, please do not blame *us* for being unresponsive. That hurts. Regards, Gora ___ gnome-i18n mailing list gnome-i18n@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n
Re: Licenses of .po files, and translations
Le vendredi 12 septembre 2008 à 22:26 +0530, Gora Mohanty a écrit : > Hi, > I need a clarification on the licensing of .po files. > As per my understanding, both the .pot template files, > and the .po files for individual languages, assert > copyright, and licence restrictions, with the usual > licensing terms being the same as for the package itself. > > Thus, as I see it, for an application licensed under > the GPL, the .pot files, and the .po files are also > GPL-licensed. Therefore, the following requirements > ensue for a GPLed application: > (a) A distribution with local-language translations of > the application is obliged to provide, upon request, > copies of the source .po file for each language. > (b) Any modifications to existing .po file translations > for any language also automatically fall under the > GPL. > I would like to hear whether people agree with this. Yes, completely agree. The sentence "This file is distributed under the same license as the package." is absolutely clear. If you suspect license violation, your first approach should be to ask friendly for correction and source publication. Secondly, if you see no results, the case could be escalated to a higher level. Our beloved Luis Villa (member of GNOME Board of Directors) could be of some help in this situation. But legal action should be a last resort solution. HTH Claude ___ gnome-i18n mailing list gnome-i18n@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n
Re: Licenses of .po files, and translations
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 23:08:13 +0200 Claude Paroz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > Yes, completely agree. > The sentence "This file is distributed under the same license as the > package." is absolutely clear. Yes, I thought so too, but wanted to verify it, as I had never heard of an earlier instance of such a thing. Thanks for your input. > If you suspect license violation, your first approach should be to ask > friendly for correction and source publication. [...] >But legal action should be a > last resort solution. Most definitely. We want to get things resolved, and not fight endless, and resource-consuming legal battles. Regards, Gora ___ gnome-i18n mailing list gnome-i18n@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n
Re: [Indlinux-group] Non-community-based approaches to localisation
Hi, My name is RKVS Raman and I represent the localisation team in CDAC as far as OpenOffice is concerned. By all probabilities I am the person, Gora refers to about his experience with CDAC guys. This mail is intended to make the stand of the l10n group at CDAC clear to the community and offer some explanation to the scathing accusations that Gora and others have made on CDAC. At the end of this mail I do hope CDAC contribution will be more welcome in the community. CDAC is a government funded agency and takes up projects from Government which are based on deadlines which are sometimes strict and harsh. We work towards deadlines and are answerable to the funding agency on things we commit. Localisation activity happens to be one of them. We have 2 projects under it. One is the localisation of top-class open source office tools (OpenOffice, Firefox et al) and other is a distro customised for Indian Government Sector. When working under deadlines, it was our observation that sometimes (not all) the response from l10n communities for certain languages was absent and for certain others sluggish. Oriya was one of them. I have mails written to me by Gora in which he said that they were low on resources at that time. During a meeting with him in FOSS.IN, he had said that he cannot work towards our deadlines. But that has not been the case alwys. We have taken contributions from community. The Punlinux, Utkarsh and Swecha group would offer a testimonial for Punjabi, Gujarati and Telugu. And we have compensated for it and not that we picked it up from net for free when we could have easily done it. Even Rajesh Ranjan and Ravi Ratlami have contributed to Hindi and Maithili. So we are not victimizing any "unpaid" volunteers and belittling anybody's efforts. The accusations definitely do not make any sense. Once that misconception is cleared I would want all to look at the larger picture and not dabble with petty issues of mismatched methodologies. Here is an organisation which is willing to make crucial contributions to the community at its own defined speed. I would want to believe that this is one of the larger contributions any government agency has made to the localisation efforts. Government has its interest in the effort and so has its own temporal goals. We need to meet those goals and so sometimes we need to take a path which satisfies our funding agency. At the same time few of us in the organisation do make sure that we don't lock our efforts in our own backup servers. We share it. We have always done it with OpenOffice and are now trying to do so for GNOME. I am surprised at the resistance we get when we are trying to do this. Should a major chunk of contribution go unnoticed just because we did not satisfy the egos of those in 'power'? I would not want to believe so. It would have been easy for us to just integrate it with our distro and be done with our work. We would have satisfied our funding agency, but we dont believe in it. We don't want to work in isolation. But no, we are not apologizing to anybody either. I now volunteer to be that liaison between open source communities and CDAC if need be. I have personally shared cordial relationships with ppl in IndLinux and so i with some of my colleagues from the distro l10n team can work towards making sure that the difference in methodologies do not hurt the larger goals. I do expect GNOME L10N and IndLinux community to take some positive steps in this issue. Best Regards -Raman --- RKVS Raman http://www.cdacbangalore.in/~raman http://rkvsraman.blogspot.com On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 2:23 AM, Gora Mohanty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (Deleted all personal addresses. Get yer info from lists.) > > On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 12:23:13 +0100 > "Simos Xenitellis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] > > Dear Simos, > Thank you for your message. Such input, from yourself, and > other GNOME localisation folk, who undoubtedly have a broader > perspective, is exactly the reason that I posted this message > here. It is possible that I am letting my own parochial > prejudices outweigh more long-term interests. > >> The part that I think that is surprising is that a big organisation >> (in this case C-DAC), took the initiative to put resources to carry >> out large-scale open-source localisation. > [...] > > Yes, the fact that they did do the localisation is great, > and something that at least I personally have lauded. > >> The fact that the open-source l10n communities in India were not >> consulted before the C-DAC localisation work, looks to me as a common >> mistake, and does not surprise me. The way that open-source >> communities work is just too different, and you can expect such >> issues. > > I will concede your point about government agencies not knowing > how (also, at least in India, probably not able) to deal with > a FOSS community; with its rambunc
Re: [Indlinux-group] Non-community-based approaches to localisation
Hi, 2008/9/13 RKVS Raman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > My name is RKVS Raman and I represent the localisation team in CDAC as > I do expect GNOME L10N and IndLinux community to take some positive > steps in this issue. > > Welcoming the efforts of CDAC, I think we can work to integrate the work where ever possible and with the best interests of the respective languages. Regards, -- Vikram Vincent +919448810822 http://swatantra.org/ ___ gnome-i18n mailing list gnome-i18n@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n
Re: [Indlinux-group] Non-community-based approaches to localisation
On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 10:49:09 +0530 "RKVS Raman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > My name is RKVS Raman and I represent the localisation team in CDAC as > far as OpenOffice is concerned. By all probabilities I am the person, > Gora refers to about his experience with CDAC guys. Actually, no it isn't you. I thought that we had gone through this before, and to my mind you are one of the people from CDAC who actually does make an effort to work with the community. I am sorry to have seemingly riled you up. > This mail is > intended to make the stand of the l10n group at CDAC clear to the > community and offer some explanation to the scathing accusations that > Gora and others have made on CDAC. At the end of this mail I do hope > CDAC contribution will be more welcome in the community. I am sorry, what "scathing accusations"? I was relating my personal experience, and still stand by what I have said many times: CDAC does some very valuable work, but I see little effort to do this in a participatory fashion. One clear example of this is what we have been discussing in this thread: Localisation done for some 18 languages, which were distributed with BossLinux, but not submitted back upstream, and I have yet to hear from any existing language team coordinator that they had been contacted by BossLinux folk. Other people have also pointed out flaws with the process that BossLinux has chosen for localisation. [...] > When working under deadlines, it was our observation that sometimes > (not all) the response from l10n communities for certain languages was > absent and for certain others sluggish. Oriya was one of them. I have > mails written to me by Gora in which he said that they were low on > resources at that time. During a meeting with him in FOSS.IN, he had > said that he cannot work towards our deadlines. I did say that we were low on resources, but specifically volunteered to participate myself in the first, important step, the standardisation of the glossary of terms. We also agreed, not only amongst the two of us, but with other people from CDAC, that we would be willing to review translations at an intermediate stage. None of this happened. [...] > Here is an organisation which is willing to make crucial contributions > to the community at its own defined speed. [...] > At the same time few of us in the organisation do make sure that we > don't lock our efforts in our own backup servers. We share it. We have > always done it with OpenOffice and are now trying to do so for GNOME. > I am surprised at the resistance we get when we are trying to do this. Um, I have pointed out the reasons for this in my original mail. Your translations of GNOME, at least as far as Oriya goes, did not follow the standard terminology used by the existing language team, and also sometimes missed the intended context in computer terms. This makes it difficult to suddenly integrate a large chunk of translations. Things would have gone much more smoothly if this integration could have happened a bit at a time, on a longer timescale. > Should a major chunk of contribution go unnoticed just because we did > not satisfy the egos of those in 'power'? I would not want to believe > so. It would have been easy for us to just integrate it with our > distro and be done with our work. We would have satisfied our funding > agency, but we dont believe in it. We don't want to work in isolation. > But no, we are not apologizing to anybody either. Since the impression at CDAC seems to be that it is doing people a favour by making the translated .po files available, I would like to point out that since Indian-language interfaces are distributed as binaries on the BossLinux CD, and since many of the .po files are covered by the GPL, CDAC is *required* to make such source .po files available upon request. > I now volunteer to be that liaison between open source communities and > CDAC if need be. I have personally shared cordial relationships with > ppl in IndLinux and so i with some of my colleagues from the distro > l10n team can work towards making sure that the difference in > methodologies do not hurt the larger goals. [...] Great to hear that, and please believe me, I meant no personal criticism in my original message. Can we now agree to let bygones be bygones and try to move forward? The .po files at http://downloads.bosslinux.in/Translated_Po_files/ seem to have disappeared. Can we get them back? Is it possible for you to devote some resources to submitting files upstream? We should also probably drop the gnome-i18n list from any follow-ups. Regards, Gora ___ gnome-i18n mailing list gnome-i18n@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n
Re: [Indlinux-group] Non-community-based approaches to localisation
Hello, Not all in CDAC are aware of the ways open source communities work. So some need to be treated with some amount of patience and gumption. Nevertheless we can make a fresh start now and let me get some guys from BOSS team on this along with making the translations available again :-) (I guess they took it offline cos of this thread). This thread needed a logical ending and so is marked to Gnome list as well. Best Regards -Raman On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Gora Mohanty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 10:49:09 +0530 > "RKVS Raman"wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> My name is RKVS Raman and I represent the localisation team in CDAC as >> far as OpenOffice is concerned. By all probabilities I am the person, >> Gora refers to about his experience with CDAC guys. > > Actually, no it isn't you. I thought that we had gone > through this before, and to my mind you are one of the > people from CDAC who actually does make an effort to work > with the community. I am sorry to have seemingly riled > you up. > >> This mail is >> intended to make the stand of the l10n group at CDAC clear to the >> community and offer some explanation to the scathing accusations that >> Gora and others have made on CDAC. At the end of this mail I do hope >> CDAC contribution will be more welcome in the community. > > I am sorry, what "scathing accusations"? I was relating my > personal experience, and still stand by what I have said > many times: CDAC does some very valuable work, but I see > little effort to do this in a participatory fashion. One > clear example of this is what we have been discussing in > this thread: Localisation done for some 18 languages, > which were distributed with BossLinux, but not submitted > back upstream, and I have yet to hear from any existing > language team coordinator that they had been contacted by > BossLinux folk. Other people have also pointed out flaws > with the process that BossLinux has chosen for localisation. > > [...] >> When working under deadlines, it was our observation that sometimes >> (not all) the response from l10n communities for certain languages was >> absent and for certain others sluggish. Oriya was one of them. I have >> mails written to me by Gora in which he said that they were low on >> resources at that time. During a meeting with him in FOSS.IN, he had >> said that he cannot work towards our deadlines. > > I did say that we were low on resources, but specifically > volunteered to participate myself in the first, important > step, the standardisation of the glossary of terms. We also > agreed, not only amongst the two of us, but with other > people from CDAC, that we would be willing to review > translations at an intermediate stage. None of this happened. > > [...] >> Here is an organisation which is willing to make crucial contributions >> to the community at its own defined speed. > [...] >> At the same time few of us in the organisation do make sure that we >> don't lock our efforts in our own backup servers. We share it. We have >> always done it with OpenOffice and are now trying to do so for GNOME. >> I am surprised at the resistance we get when we are trying to do this. > > Um, I have pointed out the reasons for this in my original > mail. Your translations of GNOME, at least as far as Oriya > goes, did not follow the standard terminology used by the > existing language team, and also sometimes missed the intended > context in computer terms. This makes it difficult to suddenly > integrate a large chunk of translations. Things would have > gone much more smoothly if this integration could have happened > a bit at a time, on a longer timescale. > >> Should a major chunk of contribution go unnoticed just because we did >> not satisfy the egos of those in 'power'? I would not want to believe >> so. It would have been easy for us to just integrate it with our >> distro and be done with our work. We would have satisfied our funding >> agency, but we dont believe in it. We don't want to work in isolation. >> But no, we are not apologizing to anybody either. > > Since the impression at CDAC seems to be that it is > doing people a favour by making the translated .po > files available, I would like to point out that since > Indian-language interfaces are distributed as binaries > on the BossLinux CD, and since many of the .po files > are covered by the GPL, CDAC is *required* to make such > source .po files available upon request. > >> I now volunteer to be that liaison between open source communities and >> CDAC if need be. I have personally shared cordial relationships with >> ppl in IndLinux and so i with some of my colleagues from the distro >> l10n team can work towards making sure that the difference in >> methodologies do not hurt the larger goals. > [...] > > Great to hear that, and please believe me, I meant no personal > criticism in my original message. Can we now agree to let > bygones be bygones a
