> They did with the wiki content, probably they will do the same thing > or something similar with Rosetta translations. The question is if it > will be free. Everything related to Rosetta is currently assumed by me of *not* being free. > > The real problem, is that we have reports of people overwritten > >translation using Rosetta, and usually, with bad translations, which > >means that we can trust *our* translation, but we still need to check > >if it is worthwhile to review translation from others or just translate > >it again in the "Right Way (tm)" (and there is still the license problem, > >how to push something without being allowed to). > > If the content we're merging is free, there's no problem show this to the > reviewer and let him accept or refuse the translation. It's way simpler to > do > than rewrite everything again. If the translation was overwritten in a > 'source' (eg: > Rosetta), we should show the translation we've and the alternative > translations as suggestions. This is mor eor less how I see the future system to deal with conflicting translations. In short, any translation will have an "owner" and all "concurrent" translations will be handled as suggested changes.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature