Hello, Martin, I will continue to discuss here, as this is the translation list.
You can still make the language pack an open-source package and only close-source the code of the software itself (if authors of the code are willing to give you that permission). Lp, m. V V sre., 2. jun. 2021 ob 12:55 je oseba Martin Keary via Audacity-translation <[email protected]> napisala: > Hi all, > > Apologies for not responding to the initial emails sooner and for the > length of my response. > > I was asked by Muse to work on Audacity due to my experience working with > the community on MuseScore. One of my main functions on that project (and > now this project) is organising an 'internal' group of paid developers and > designers, while also working closely with the community. The reason I > mention this is because over at MuseScore, I have always made sure to do > the following: > > - Communicate our plans and consult the community in advance > - Advocate for resources to be dedicated to the community (better > documentation, simpler build processes, a paid coordinator hired from > the community, etc.) > - Working with the community and providing design (and development > support) to help their work get merged > - I also advocate on the behalf of the community to make sure that the > heads of Muse understand where they are coming from > > Things are not always perfect at MuseScore but we've now released some > very significant improvements over the last 2 years and I would say that I > have developed a very good relationship with our community. Part of this > boils down to trust, which I recognise is sorely lacking among the Audacity > community, who I have not yet really worked with or know (apart from the > 'core' team who I know very well). > > The lack of trust is obviously largely due to the whole Temetry fiasco, > which put us on the backfoot and contributed to us being painted in a very > bad light. I want to address this first, since it was mentioned earlier > that we are trying to sneak things past the community. As I mentioned in my > response to the outcry about telemetry/google/yandex, the intention was > never to include these things in Audacity without telling anyone. The pull > request we created was meant to be published *at the same time as an > announcement about it *to collect feedback. This way, we could explain > why we were doing it while also allowing people to inspect the PR for > themselves (this is exactly what we did on MuseScore). However, since the > pull request was published early by one of our developers who didn't > quite get the memo - an incredibly frustrating mistake - we lost the > ability to make any announcement and have ever since been on the defensive. > If you find this explanation suspicious, ask yourself a question: why would > we publish a PR at all when we could simply merge it to master? Why would > we call the PR 'Telemetry in Audacity' and explicitly call out Google and > Yandex in the description? These aren't the actions of a bunch of people > trying to be clandestine. > > When it comes to the CLA agreement, we did make an announcement > <https://github.com/audacity/audacity/discussions/932> about it in > advance and I made sure that the full range of possibilities were openly > discussed so that contributors were as informed as possible. I can't expect > anyone to take our word that we don't have crooked intentions but I feel > the arguments for the CLA agreement are pretty strong. > > 1. The first thing to address is the profit motive. The CLA does make > it possible for Muse to create a version of Audacity that is proprietary. > However, this would be (from a business / profit perspective) utter > insanity. The reason Muse acquired Audacity was because there is a > strategic advantage to having a free, open source audio editor with a large > audience as part of the Muse suite of apps. The proof of this can be seen > with the success of MuseScore desktop (which has just been up-licensed to > GPL3 in order to support VST3 and which has vastly improved since it was > acquired in 2018). MuseScore desktop has a completely separate sister > service called MuseScore.com, a website where people can find scores (user > generated or professional). MuseScore.com makes money from > subscriptions, which in turn funds the development of MuseScore desktop. > This is exactly the kind of idea that Muse are developing in order to fund > the ongoing development of Audacity. More information about this cloud/web > service will be published as soon as possible (it takes time to build these > things), however, you can rest assured that there is no intention to 'make > Audacity proprietary' or to try to monetize it by hiding features behind a > paywall or putting ads in it. We know that this would completely kill both > the audience and the community in one fell swoop. I'm not appealing to > trust here. I'm appealing to business logic. Audacity will be free and open > source because it is in Muse's interest that it remains that way. > > 2. The CLA agreement (most likely) is not necessary for the > development of a web service. The CLA needs to be set up so Muse can ensure > that they have the flexibility to adapt to future unknowns (as seen before > with the VLC situation). It's not the case that they are specifically > preparing for the issues faced by VLC; they are preparing for what may be > coming around the corner in 5-10 years. Distribution channels are changing > constantly and they do not want to be in a situation where Audacity can not > be distributed (or is limited in some other way) due to an inability to be > flexible with the license. > > 3. It is possible that Muse may want to reuse code from Audacity in a > proprietary application but there are no plans to do that. I mention it > because it is technically possible and if I don't mention it, people will > assume that this is actually the plan. > > > From my point of view, the reason I accepted this job is because I see it > as a potentially wonderful compromise between FOSS and business (I find > it wonderful for MuseScore). My job is to listen to users and lead the > improvements of Audacity so that more people can get more out of it for > free. If I succeed, then a small portion of those people may choose to use > a separate web service to publish/share/store their audio, which will in > turn fund more resources to continue to improve Audacity at pace. Who > benefits? Users get a vastly improved application for free. Muse makes some > money. Contributors get to keep working on software they love, knowing that > the moment they become unhappy, they can fork Audacity (keeping all the new > benefits contributed to by me and my team that they want to keep) and can > continue on that fork instead. > > My personal interest is in the millions of users who can't afford DAW's or > an exorbitant Adobe subscription, who just want some software to help them > create a podcast, song, etc. I'm in this project for as long as that > remains true and I'm happy for Muse to make some money in order for that to > happen. For those who see the idea of anyone making money as a fundamental > line that cannot be crossed, I don't share the same ideology but I respect > it (God knows we've seen these things happen in the past). I imagine that > you will not sign the CLA and I'm very sad that I won't get to work with > you. > > I know that I have absolutely no right to expect anything from any of you > but I would ask that you at least give us a chance to show the kinds of > things we are thinking of building. Let us publish our design roadmap and > then consider whether you are willing to stay with us a little longer. > > I may email once or twice in this thread if I've left anything crucial out > but I'm not going to engage in back and forth conversation out of respect > for those who may find it tiresome and who don't want to receive hundreds > of emails today. We have set up a Discord server > <https://discord.gg/DdCeASSW> for Audacity now, which I feel is more > conducive to back-and-forth discussions. On MuseScore, some of our > translators find it useful to converse on Discord, so we set up the same > thing for Audacity too. I'll happily continue chatting there (although not > until a little bit later today). > > Thanks a lot, > Martin > > > > On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 10:06 AM Cleber Tavano <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Martin, hello there >> >> That's the main point here, they want us to sign an agreement so they can >> change the license used at that time (gpl2+) to anything they want, >> including any open or closed-source licenses. >> >> >> >> Em qua, 2 de jun de 2021 06:00, Martin Srebotnjak <[email protected]> >> escreveu: >> >>> Our work is released under the license as Audacity at the time of our >>> contributions. >>> Muse must comply with that. >>> They just need to change this sentence. >>> No problem. >>> >>> Lp, m. >>> >>> V V sre., 2. jun. 2021 ob 10:44 je oseba Joachim Huffer < >>> [email protected]> napisala: >>> >>>> Well, as I understand it, if I sign this CLA, I basically give Muse the >>>> right to do whatever it wants with my translation: >>>> >>>> >>>> - You grant MUSECY SM LTD, an affiliate of MuseScore and Ultimate >>>> Guitar, (“Company”) the ability to use the Contributions in any way. You >>>> hereby grant to Company , a perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide, fully >>>> paid-up, royalty free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, >>>> prepare >>>> derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and >>>> distribute your Contribution and such derivative works. >>>> >>>> >>>> So basically they could choose to start work on a proprietary closed >>>> source version of Audacity and use the submitted translations there for >>>> free. >>>> >>>> Joachim >>>> >>>> Am Mi., 2. Juni 2021 um 10:22 Uhr schrieb Thomas De Rocker < >>>> [email protected]>: >>>> >>>>> Hi >>>>> >>>>> Is it really that big of a deal? The way I understand, it's only to >>>>> prevent any legal issues in the future, no? >>>>> >>>>> *[...] This license is not only for the **protection of the >>>>> contributors** themselves, but also for the **protection of the >>>>> project and its users**; it does **not change your rights to use your >>>>> own Contributions for any other purpose** [...]* >>>>> >>>>> *The license agreement is a legal document in which you state you are >>>>> entitled to contribute the code to Audacity and are willing to have it >>>>> used >>>>> in distributions and derivative works. This means that should there be any >>>>> kind of legal issue in the future as to the origins and ownership of any >>>>> particular piece of code, Audacity has the necessary forms on file from >>>>> the >>>>> contributor(s) saying they were permitted to make this contribution.* >>>>> >>>>> *The CLA also ensures that once you have provided a contribution, you >>>>> **cannot >>>>> try to withdraw permission for its use at a later date**. People and >>>>> companies can therefore use Audacity, confident that they will not be >>>>> asked >>>>> to **stop using pieces of the code at a later date**.* >>>>> >>>>> *Being able to make a clear statement about the origins of the code is >>>>> very important as Audacity is adopted by large organizations who are >>>>> necessarily cautious about adopting products with unknown origins. We wish >>>>> for Audacity to be used and distributed as widely as possible and in order >>>>> to do this with confidence, we need to be sure about the origins and >>>>> continuing existence of the code.* >>>>> >>>>> *Can I withdraw permission to use my contributions at a later date?* >>>>> >>>>> *No. This is one of the reasons Audacity requires a CLA. No **individual >>>>> contributor can hold such a threat **over the entire community of >>>>> users. Once you make a contribution, you are saying MUSECY SM LTD (an >>>>> affiliate of MuseScore and Ultimate Guitar) can use that piece of code >>>>> forever.* >>>>> >>>>> Full version here: https://www.audacityteam.org/cla/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please don't make any rash decisions... Forking the project and >>>>> thereby splitting the Audacity community could have bad consequences (I'm >>>>> thinking about OpenOffice vs LibreOffice). >>>>> Please... try to *communicate* first, asking *why* decisions are >>>>> made, to prevent jumping to conclusions. >>>>> >>>>> I sincerely hope we can continue to put our energy and time in the *same >>>>> project*. >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> >>>>> Thomas >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> *Van:* Martin Srebotnjak <[email protected]> >>>>> *Verzonden:* woensdag 2 juni 2021 9:00 >>>>> *Aan:* [email protected] < >>>>> [email protected]> >>>>> *Onderwerp:* Re: [Audacity-translation] CONTRIBUTOR LICENSE AGREEMENT >>>>> - time to fork? >>>>> >>>>> Helo, >>>>> >>>>> I totally agree with you. Let's fork. >>>>> >>>>> Lp, m. >>>>> >>>>> V V sre., 2. jun. 2021 ob 08:10 je oseba Cleber Tavano < >>>>> [email protected]> napisala: >>>>> >>>>> Hello everybody, >>>>> >>>>> Again, I learned from the press that Audacity is changing everything >>>>> in licensing and "forgot" to let us know why or what they're doing. >>>>> Now we're asked to give in all our contributions under a murky and >>>>> uncertainly-worded license agreement that will grant Muse the right to do >>>>> whatever they want for good. >>>>> >>>>> I contribute to this software since the very beginning and I'm proud >>>>> that Audacity is such an important tool used in schools around my country >>>>> and that my translations made it happen. >>>>> But I'm NOT an employee of Muse and I'll never be. I refuse to sign a >>>>> CLA giving to these guys completely and perpetual rights over my work, >>>>> including even taking my contributions and change how it's licensed. >>>>> I had agreed to work under the gpl license, not to give in my rights >>>>> for an "agreement" that can't even be clear about how it will be used. >>>>> If I wanted to get my work used in a proprietary software, I wouldn't >>>>> commit it in a GPLed project. >>>>> >>>>> Unless you people at Muse come with something completely different >>>>> from the terms of the proposed agreement, I'll kindly ask you to retreat >>>>> my >>>>> contributions because I won't agree with this draconian license. >>>>> >>>>> First the telemetry, now this. >>>>> >>>>> I can't help but think that IT'S TIME TO FORK AUDACITY and let Muse do >>>>> whatever they want to the code they can prove is theirs. >>>>> >>>>> Cleber >>>>> PT_br translator >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Audacity-translation mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-translation >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Audacity-translation mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-translation >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Audacity-translation mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-translation >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Audacity-translation mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-translation >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Audacity-translation mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-translation >> > _______________________________________________ > Audacity-translation mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-translation >
_______________________________________________ Audacity-translation mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-translation
