corinthia-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Kelly <pmke...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] White-Box Releases Only
Date Mon, 22 Dec 2014 02:53:30 GMT
> On 22 Dec 2014, at 9:39 am, Peter Kelly <pmkelly@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 22 Dec 2014, at 12:47 am, Dennis E. Hamilton <orcmid@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>> I am not clear on to what degree Corinthia Source releases will allow building of
binaries that are end-user meaningful and working in anything more than console sessions.
 This proposal is intended to anticipate the prospect of the code being compilable to store
"apps" and GUI-based end-user applications on many form factors and platforms.  This proposal
is particularly relevant to cases where forks will compete for monetization, including via
embedded advertising and also sales through search-engine optimization and purchased ad placement.
>> 
>> PROPOSAL
>> 
>> Corinthia project source code releases and the source-code repository shall build
to "white box" binaries and distributions/deployments with default branding as unsupported
Corinthia development editions (stable or otherwise).  Provisions for branding of a distribution
(and distributions of forks) will be incorporated and given default settings.  This also extends
to producing digitally-signed versions designed to satisfy certification requirements for
introduction into software "app" stores.  There may be instructions for how to successfully
build a branded and supported authentic distribution, but one should not be directly obtainable
using the stable source without modification.
> 
> 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.

Actually to further expand on this, I would consider Corinthia to be similar in nature to
WebKit. Nobody outside of the developer community knows what WebKit is, and nobody uses WebKit
as their browser. They *do* however use Safari, Chrome, and Opera - all of which are based
on WebKit [1]. There’s the Chromium open source project, and then the Chrome browser which
is the commercial (albeit free) version of that with extra Google branding + tie-in to their
services.

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.

[1] Actually the latter two are now based on Blink, which is a fork of WebKit

—
Dr Peter M. Kelly
pmkelly@apache.org

PGP key: http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key <http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key>
(fingerprint 5435 6718 59F0 DD1F BFA0 5E46 2523 BAA1 44AE 2966)


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message