Marc, this is my last post in this forum related to requirement
just to answer your questions.
I already submitted a code patch--maybe you forgot.
Didier said he hasn't had time to look at it yet.
Before I submit MORE patches I want to see if anything
ever comes of that one. One answer is to reject it
with a specific reason so I can fix it.
If he likes the patch, it's a simple change to make the
UP and DOWN keys work back like they did--I'll do that
and resubmit it.
2. I haven't decided definitively whether to fork, write
from scratch, or anything else yet until the following:
3. There needs to be a finite list of all the requirements
(features) needed in a CAT tool. Think of it as an audit
of what's in OmegaT right now and what we (as translators)
want it to have. I plan to study the RFEs to add to this.
And I would appreciate your input.
4. When we (whoever that is) decide the requirements list
is complete enough, THEN the technical discussion of how
to get there can begin. First, if the developers can get
that entire list into OmegaT even in stages, that would
be GREAT! And I will help with the coding. I don't want
to build anything totally on my own.
5. However, if your own team says they can never add some of
the features that we decide are important or not within a
reasonable time frame, etc. Then we can discuss forks, new
projects, etc. (It appears some of the features have
previously been rejected by developers of OmegaT as too
much work. Perhaps they will reconsider or else this
might be foregone conclusion.)
6. It got confusing talking about the current OmegaT and future
OmagaT in some messages. So I just picked a name OmegaTP
to avoid confusion until someone either picks a better
name or it all gets done in OmegaT itself. New releases
of software are often code-named until released for this
So any decision of forking, writing from scratch, seems premature now.
PLEASE HELP: I still can't find the RFE's. I feel dumb because
I have been searching in the source forge project.
[mailto:omegat-development-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Marc
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 5:43 PM
To: Mailing list for OmegaT developers.
Subject: Re: [OmTdev] Omegat-development Digest, Vol 16, Issue 31
I've contributed quite heavily to this discussion so far.
We seem to be going around in circles though.
There are two points that we don't seem to be able to get past.
One is OmegaT's distribution structure and community model. As we've made
abundantly clear, that is not going to change - at least, not in the
foreseeable future, not radically, and not at your direction. I thought we'd
got past that point, but here you go again, using this list to present your
vision of being paid for our team's work. It's just not going to happen - at
least not with the blessing of our project. Please accept this fact once and
The other point is OmegaT's architecture. Despite its flaws, we are happy
the way that OmegaT has developed so far and we're not going to abandon it
from one day to the next and redesign it from the ground up, not in the
foreseeable future, not radically, and not at your direction. Again, this
should be more than clear to you now, so please accept it once and for all.
Now I'd like to ask you exactly what you propose to do.
Do you intend to fork the project? If so, please go ahead - you're entitled
do so under the GPL. If you do, though, this is not the right list on which
to discuss your intentions.
Do you intend to launch your own project, beginning development from
If so, the same applies - this is not the right venue.
Conversely, do you intend to contribute code to the project? I had been
that you might take Zoltan's sentiments on board and actually write some
rather than simply continue speculating. I even gave you an example of a
simple piece of code that you could write.
You can go about this in either of two ways. You can either submit a patch
Didier and ask him to review and incorporate it; if you do that, you will
have to do it *on his terms*. Or you can do what Alex is doing, and create a
prototype, and make it available to the community for testing. If you take
the second option and produce a prototype, you must appreciate that you are
simply delaying the point at which you make the decision to fork the project
or not. Sooner or later, you will have to either join us and help our
development team to integrate your code into the official build, on their
terms; or take your fork and create your own project for it. There is only
room for one "official" OmegaT.
I'm not saying anything new here, but we don't seem to be any closer to a
conclusion. What's it going to be?
Am Friday 21 September 2007 22:19 schrieb Wayne Walter:
> That's fine. It's difficult to offend me. But I do try to defend
> myself when appropriate and concede when not, and pray for the wisdom
> to see the difference!
> But charging for built version and copy protection are TWO different
> things just as the GPL, OSI and Richard Stallman himself will tell you.
> You need to read up on GNU.org to understand this better and really
> understand the GPL license.
> Copy protection means that if you buy Microsoft Office and then give
> a copy to your friend along with the install code, you have committed
> a federal crime under penatly of potential prison.
> You didn't even sell it, you just give it away.
> That's what the GPL is fighting.
> In contrast, the GPL allows anyone to sell distributions but ALSO
> requires that those buyers can then give a copy to whoever they
> want for FREE. But they are DISALLOWED from selling the software
> itself to anybody.
> So even the GPL does restrict copying because it only allows FREE copying.
> But the idea that no money should ever be paid for software
> developers to do their job is AGAINST the GPL spirit also.
> Just ask Richard Stallman. He believes in subsistence based
> software development (the term he uses) instead of GET RICH type
> software development. He accepted payment for enhancements
> and for deluxe distributions until he was able to retire
> And now it gives it all away for free, as far as I know.
> Any idea that software developers should never get paid for
> their time is just plain dumb and simple-minded.
> It keeps projects like OmegaT always starving for developers
> to enhance features. Richard Stallman on the other hand
> built world class products because he funded his development.
> Wayne Walter
> -----Original Message-----
> From: omegat-development-bounces@...
> [mailto:omegat-development-bounces@...] On Behalf Of
> Samuel Murray
> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 4:02 PM
> To: Mailing list for OmegaT developers.
> Subject: Re: [OmTdev] Omegat-development Digest, Vol 16, Issue 31
> Marc Prior wrote:
> > Am Friday 21 September 2007 20:31 schrieb Samuel Murray:
> >> Do you think
> >> there is a market for a paid OmegaT or a subscription OmegaT?
> > There is one person who should be able to answer that question. :-)
> Prior: Marc, I was referring to a scenario in which the product is at
> least as good as the Real McCoy and of which development will hopefully
> not stop after a single enhancement.
> > So even if your interpretation is legally
> > correct, copy protection is hardly in the spirit of the GPL.
> I'm not referring to you or OmegaT, but... erm... to me, it borders on
> hypocrisy to shun systems that perform copy protection but welcome
> programs that are so difficult to install by the normal user that they
> are copy protected in all but name.
> > Changing your name to Wayne: Walter might help.
> I'm getting a rather positive vibe from Wayne: Walter. He seems
> genuinely excited about OmegaT... and he doesn't go on and on about how
> utterly incompetent we all are.
> Murray: Samuel
> (PS. Wayne, I hope you're not offended by us talking about you in front
> of you. We mean no offense.)
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
Omegat-development mailing list