corinthia-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <>
Subject RE: [PROPOSAL] White-Box Releases Only
Date Mon, 22 Dec 2014 03:24:20 GMT
I agree that anyone that does major overhaul to build a branded distribution of their own will
certainly do that.  I am absolutely not concerned about that.  Those are forks and they are
just fine.

For binaries built and distributed by the Corinthia project, whatever the quantities and mix
are, I am concerned about two cases: (1) assuring the authenticity and integrity of the ones
built by the project and (2) discouraging knock-off any Corinthia-originated executables and
"apps" that pass for someone else's but end up appearing to be ones built and as distributed
by the project.

The white-label situation is mainly about (2) if and when that ever arises.  It is good to
know the policy about that, so we don't fall into the problem that AOO faces (and this has
nothing to do with an AOO-Corinthia connection, just that they now face a problem over knock-offs).

(1) also helps in conjunction with (2) but (1) includes knowing they have artifacts that were
produced by the project and that the project stands behind.  There are a number of positive
benefits, including other folks doing forensic work that leads them to look into the libraries
someone is using.  It is valuable for there to be a clear-cut method for determining it was
produced by the Corinthia Project or not.  This is also relevant if we ever need to identify
library distributions that may be impacted by a vulnerability or exploit and it is important
that folks can determine what has dependencies on that particular library.

 -- replying just to this one --
From: Peter Kelly [] 
Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2014 18:54
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] White-Box Releases Only

> On 22 Dec 2014, at 9:39 am, Peter Kelly <> wrote:
[ ... ]

> I think a precursor to this is us determining what exactly Corinthia *is*. My view (and
I realise others may differ) is that it is first and foremost a collection of libraries from
which one can build end-user applications (be they commercial or open source), rather than
an application in and of itself (which is a key difference from OpenOffice). While application
develop has been discussed as part of the effort - and I agree is within the scope of what
we are doing - I think we risk confusion if we try and use the Corinthia name to refer to
a particular application.

[ ... ]

I also foresee there being several major applications that come out of our efforts. One could
be a desktop office suite. Another could be a web-based office suite. A third may be an iOS/Android
office suite. A fourth may be a dedicated writing tool, or a dedicated spreadsheet (that is,
focusing on one particular aspect). A fifth could be a content management system/e-publishing
workflow which utilises the editor and file format support.

So I think that targeting a specific application that an end-user can download & use is
at this stage premature, and risks constraining the scope of what the project is about. As
I mentioned above, I see our efforts as primarily directed towards “building blocks” used
for building *many* different end-user apps, with likely multiple end-user apps in addition
to that - but each of those apps would be a distinct brand/distribution from the perspective
of an end user.

[ ... ]

View raw message